Eureka [1 ed.] 025202849X, 2002152318

Citation preview

Edited Inj Sti lart Levine amJS usan F. L e vi lie

EDGAR ALLAN POE Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and Textual Variants by Stuart Levine and Susan F. Levine

Originally published in 1848, Eureka is Poe’s book on how the universe was formed, how it functions, and what its future might be. Poe provides a physical, scientific explana¬ tion for the interconnectedness of all things —an idea at the heart of much of nine¬ teenth-century romanticism and American Transcendentalism in particular. This user-friendly edition puts Eureka in context, explaining Poe’s excellent grasp of then-new developments in astronomy, his often-prescient considerations of what was known and what might come next (Poe is especially good on space-time), and the close connecdons between Eureka and the thought and attitudes of his era.

Through extensive annotations this edition of Eureka demonstrates intimate connec¬ tions with Poe’s poetry, fiction, and criticism; with his career and aspirations, his humor and satire; and with his love of grand literary effects.

It also presents a carefully edited text, in¬ cluding Poe’s own emendations from several copies which he marked for the revised reprinting that he hoped would follow, and related documents.

EUREKA

Edgar Allan Poe EUREKA Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and Textual Variants by STUART LEVINE AND SUSAN F. LEVINE

\v^

UNIVERSITY

OF

ILLINOIS

Urbana and Chicago

PRESS

© 2004 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America c 5 4 3 2

1

© This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicadon Data Poe, Edgar Allan, 1809-1849. Eureka / Edgar Allan Poe ; edited with an introduction, notes, and textual variants by Stuart Levine and Susan F. Levine, p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. isbn 0-252-02849-X (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Cosmology. I. Levine, Stuart. II. Levine, Susan F. (Susan Fleming). III. Tide. PS2620.A2148 811 '-3—dc2i

2004 2002152318

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

vii

xi

ABBREVIATIONS FOR BOOKS AND AUTHORITIES CITED

xxix

EDITORIAL METHOD

XXxi

EUREKA: A Prose Poem PREFACE

1

5

EUREKA: An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe

7

appendix: poe’s postscript to a letter ABOUT THE LECTURE “EUREKA”

notes to

Eureka

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

177

107

and poe’s postscript

l6g

117

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Colleagues in several departments at the University of Kansas have dem¬ onstrated again the worth of the old definition of a university, for they have consistently behaved like “a community of scholars.” We are especially grateful to the classicists Michael Shaw, Oliver Phillips, and James Seaver; John A. Weir (deceased, 1997) of the Department of Physiology and Cell Biology; and Warner Morse (deceased, 1991), Richard DeGeorge, and Anthony Genova of the Department of Philosophy, but others helped as well. Bruce Twarog’s love for the history of his field, astronomy, was our good fortune. In five separate sessions, he patiently briefed us on the relation¬ ship between Eureka and the best scientific thinking of Poe’s day. Our judgment that Eureka is sound in most of its astronomy history and in its introductions to what was known or hypothesized in the 1840s is really Bruce’s. We should note that we are not the first to reach that conclusion. As Richard Hodgens said in a letter to us of May 11, 1985, “Poe’s physi¬ cal science was generally sound for the day.” Word processing for this edition was handled through the Wescoe Hall Word Processing Center at the University of Kansas. Denisa Brown, Sandee Kennedy, Pam LeRow, Lynn Porter, and Beth Ridenour each produced large portions of the text, staying cheerful and professional despite an airless office, the great complexity of this volume, SGL’s handwriting, and a collapse of the university’s mainframe computer. Pam LeRow’s work has been especially concentrated. The project has gone on so long that these women have become connected to its texture; we admire them all and are very grateful. Librarians have helped us early and late. We extend thanks to many staff members of the University of Kansas Libraries, especially to Sandra Brandt, Marilyn Clark, Eleanor Symons, Barbara Jones, and Rob Melton; to John Kirkpatrick and Cathy Henderson of the Harry Ransom Human¬ ities Research Center, University of Texas at Austin; to Libby Chenault

• v 1 1 •

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of the University of North Carolina Library; to Julius Barclay, Joan St. C. Crane, and George Riser of the Rare Books Department of the Alderman Library at the University of Virginia; to Paul Needham and Barbara Paul¬ son at the Pierpoint Morgan Library in New York; to Dale Bentz and Frank Paluka at the University of Iowa Library; to NancyJ. Halli of the Histori¬ cal Society of Pennsylvania; and to Evelyn Timberlake at the Library of Congress. James C. Campbell, a doctoral student at the University of Kansas, took a directed readings course in Poe from SGL in 1987 and was good enough to do his reading of Eureka from word processor “batch” copies, proof¬ reading as he went. The extra pair of eyes was most helpful. The great generosity of Richard M. Hodgens must be acknowledged. He was good enough to share with us material used in his extensive com¬ parison of the pamphlet publication of the Nichol lectures with the text of Eureka. The present edition of Eureka reflects his contribution in a number of places. Originally conceived as a part of Burton Pollin’s The Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe, this project bears evidence of his attention and sugges¬ tions. Moreover, his life’s work on Poe has included important scholars’ tools that greatly facilitated preparation of this edition and that will go on enriching subsequent work on Poe. Major scholarly reputations have rested on accomplishments less difficult and less useful than single ref¬ erence volumes that Pollin has produced, and he has produced a num¬ ber of them. Our editorial work has been supported by a sabbatical granted to SGL by the University of Kansas and by a number of small awards: a grant from the General Research Fund, University of Kansas; a travel grant from the Travel to Collections Program, National Endowment for the Humanities, to work in the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center Library, Uni¬ versity of Texas at Austin (to work especially with the “Nelson-Mabbott” copy of the 1848 Putnam edition of Eureka); and a travel grant from the Hall Center for the Humanities, University of Kansas, to aid with the expenses of a trip to the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York (to work especially with the “Hurst-Wakeman” copy of the same edition). The Graduate School of the University of Kansas has twice allowed SFL to take extended leaves from her duties in that office to dedicate extra time to the project. In 1985 David M. Katzman of the University of Kansas, and in early

• v i i i •

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1988 Theodore M. Hovet of the University of Northern Iowa and Nancy Walker of Vanderbilt University, members of the editorial board of Amer¬ ican Studies, were good enough to take on portions of what were normal¬ ly SGL’s duties as editor of that journal. Their generosity expedited work on this edition.

•IX*

INTRODUCTION A longing swept him like the wind of the muse to understand and trans¬ form his beginnings: to see the indestructible nucleus and redemption of creation, the remote and the abstract image and correspondence, in which all things and events gained their substance and universal meaning. However far from him, however distant and removed, he longed to see, he longed to see the atom, the very nail of moment in the universe. —Wilson Harris, Palace of the Peacock (London, i960)

Poe’s Eureka is a product of the age that also produced Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus, Melville’s Moby-Dick and Pierre, Thoreau’s Walden, the music of Liszt and Wagner, Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, and Humboldt’s Kosmos, stardingly unconventional works difficult to confine to convenient cate¬ gories, works intended, indeed, to dissolve boundaries between catego¬ ries that their creators felt to be oppressive. To some of their creators Poe has direct intellectual ties, to which this introduction and the notes al¬ lude, but the larger context, the milieu in which such explosive artifacts were invented, must be borne in mind lest Eureka appear an isolated anomaly, an inexplicable freak. Mention, no more, is all that is appropri¬ ate here. Understand that the list of unconventional and rebellious works of that age is arbitrary; the reader may think of others. That was an era of such things. These introductory remarks are an attempt to characterize one of this group of strange mid-century works. The reader should keep in mind that these comments were written by an editor who, in the course of annotat¬ ing Eureka, came to see many aspects of how it had been put together. Knowing its seams and stitches, acutely aware of its patchwork fabric, he is perhaps too close to it, too liable to underestimate its impact on those who come to it with less foreknowledge of Poe’s methods. Poe intended that impact to be powerful. For certainly many readers have been moved by Eureka. Paul Valery said that he was grateful to Poe for the scientific briefing and for a glimpse of the emotion behind scientific discovery. “These sciences,” he wrote, “now

•xi-

INTRODUCTION taught so coldly were founded and developed by men with a passionate interest in their work. Eureka made me feel some of this passion.” The great underlying unity for which Eureka argues has of course been deep¬ ly appealing to many. Valery again put it well: “The universe is formed on a plan the profound symmetry of which is present, as it were, in the inner structure of our minds. Hence, the poetic instinct will lead us blind¬ ly to the truth.”1 This introduction must stress the strong connections between Eureka, the works that Poe used in preparing it, and the rest of his writing. Explain¬ ing these connections, however, does not demonstrate that Eureka is merely a collage of ideas and language assembled from the writings of others and from Poe’s own work, for it connects to his poetry, criticism, and fiction in another way as well: in it, as in all his best writing, Poe remembered the importance of dramatic impact, of memorable effect. Poe had selected the largest of topics—matter and spirit, science and inspiration, the nature and meaning of the universe, the history and destiny of the world. He meant to bring it all off grandly. If much of the substance of Eureka comes from borrowings familiar to the specialist in Poe, much of its rhetorical tone and its occasional exaltation come from the same sources as that tone and that mood when they appear in work of Melville, Whitman, Wagner, or other inventors of new forms. This is not to imply that there were no precedents. When Poe called Eureka a poem, he was placing it in a very long tradition of writings that were poetic and were at the same time attempts to grasp the nature of things. In translation, at first hand or through secondary accounts, Poe was familiar with at least some such works. Humboldt’s Kosmos, to whose author Eureka is dedicated but that Poe may not have read thoroughly, was a modern example, at once a scientific treatise and a highly charged emotional poetic response to the cosmic environment. Equally emotional was the religiously moralizing scientific rhetoric of J. P. Nichol, much less important intellectually but very well known to Poe, as we shall see. What Poe engaged in is an ancient, honorable venture. Parmenides of Elea, for example, around 470

b.c.e.—the

date is very tenuous—similarly

presented his great findings as a poem. Carried by a chariot “on to the resounding road of the Goddess” of Truth, he reported what the goddess i. The quotations are from Malcom Cowley’s translation of “Au sujet d’Eureka,” quoted in Carlson, ed„ Recognition, 103-10 (quotations on 105 and 106), from Variety 1 (1927): 123-37. Cowley’s text was Valery’s preface to the Baudelaire translation of Eureka (1021) from Variete 1 (1923)-

• X 1 1 •

INTRODUCTION had spoken, axioms about the nature of existence, spirit, matter, oneness, and the heavenly bodies. Poe would not have accepted Parmenides— paragraph 17 of Eureka, indeed, perhaps even alludes to his dicta as ex¬ amples of axioms that should be challenged—but like Parmenides he began his truth-giving poem with a dramatized journey in quest of knowl¬ edge, dealt with the nature of being, and attempted to tie all understand¬ ing to a physics and astronomy that showed unity. “Thought and being are the same,” says Parmenides’ goddess. Poe’s, too. There is philosophical precedent as well for Poe’s idea of multiple universes and multiple gods (f 87) in the thinking of the presocratic philosopher Anaximander (ca. 610-ca. 546) as his ideas have been trans¬ mitted by later Greek and Roman compilers and doxographers. Simpli¬ cius (sixth century

c.e.),

for example, reported, “Those who believed in

an unlimited number of worlds, as Anaximander and his associates did, regarded them as coming-to-be and passing away throughout unlimited time” (Wheelwright, The Presocratics, 57). Cicero, in De Natura Deorum, said, “It was the opinion of Anaximander that the gods come into exis¬ tence and perish, rising and setting at long intervals, and that there are countless worlds” (ibid., 59). In St. Augustine’s CivitasDei, Anaximander is said to have “believed that the worlds,. . . are indefinite in number, and they contain everything that would grow upon them by nature. He held further [as Poe would, too] that those worlds are subject to perpetual cycles of alternating dissolution and regeneration” (ibid., 59). Poe scholars quarrel about how well he knew the classics. Perhaps he knew very little about other than major figures. The matter of parallels with ancient Anaximander, however, suggests several points. First, it shows that Eureka, although strange, was by no means isolated; there is a long tradition of similar works that unify poetic, religious, and scientific ap¬ proaches to truth. Sometimes they are even congruent in major details. Comparison also suggests that Poe may have had a sense that the Greek philosophy he knew (even his knowledge of Plato seems suspect to some modern scholars, in part because in Poe’s era Plato was read differently) was only a flawed remnant of a direct visionary truth that people once had enjoyed intuitively. Poe seems to have toyed with the idea of the ex¬ istence of a golden age. The ideal creative artist Ellison, in Poe’s “The Domain of Arnheim” (1842-47), speaks of how nature as we see it now shows but the flawed remnant of the ideal beauty it once might have embodied. Monos, in the visionary story “The Colloquy of Monos and Una” (1841), says that seer-poets “ponder piningly, yet not unwisely, upon • x 1 1 1 •

INTRODUCTION the ancient days,” when Nature spoke directly. The passage moves, ap¬ propriately, to a wistful call for “the pure contemplative spirit and majes¬ tic intuition of Plato” (Short Fiction, 108-g, 119-24, esp. 120, 146-47). It is unlikely that Poe knew what is known or believed of the early Mile¬ sian philosopher and cosmologist Anaximander. His name is never men¬ tioned in Poe’s work, although there is an allusion to the Ionic school of philosophers to which Aniximander belonged in Poe’s satire “How to Write a Blackwood Article” (1838). But because Eureka is dedicated to Humboldt, whose Kosmos is a beautiful and poetic modern scientific work that attempts to unify diverse fields of knowledge, and because Poe seems to have felt that the “proper spirit” for scientific inquiry existed once in ancient Greece, it is worth noting places in which Eureka for whatever reason actually intersects ancient speculative thought. This is because, although available evidence will not support claims of influence or knowl¬ edge, it seems likely that Poe had the “ancients” in mind as he wrote Eureka. Monos, in the storyjust mentioned, explains how occasionally in human history “the poetic intellect—that intellect which we now feel to have been the most exalted of all” has revealed truths that were not avail¬ able to “the unaided reason” (Short Fiction, 120). The motto of this story is the Greek MeMovia Tania, “Mellonta Tauta,” the title of the story Poe incorporated into the opening portions of Eureka (f 11 and f 174n). There is no question, then, of at least the association of ideas. Ancient Greece suggested the unity of poetic and scientific vision. The same pas¬ sage in “The Colloquy of Monos and Una,” incidentally, alludes to “the mystic parable” of the tree of knowledge. Poe had at hand a part of Hum¬ boldt’s Kosmos; he was cobbling together evidence to support a cosmo¬ logical insight. Perhaps, to mix metaphors, the ancient vein was open again. Poe’s calling Eureka a prose-poem gives some readers pause. Several overlapping explanations might justify the term. Eureka could be called a poem, first, for reasons that Poe states very plainly in the course of it: “Man cannot long or widely err, if he suffer himself to be guided by his poetical. . . instincts.” Moreover, “the Universe ... is ... the most sublime of poems-Poetry and Truth are one” (I237). Supernal beauty and supernal truth are identical, and they are identical with us, because we are made of the stuff of the eternal unity: the particles that constitute us and all the universe began as “unparticled” matter. Mankind carries in its being, then, knowledge of its origin and destiny; Poe ’s universe is even now returning to unity. Through the ages, Poe writes, occasional sages

•xiv-

INTRODUCTION have brilliantly sensed the nature of reality. He created fictional sages of his own, who speak in some of his visionary stories. They, like the scien¬ tists he admires and like all of Poe’s truth-givers, are poetically inspired. Poetic truth-givers appear in stories other than visionary tales as well. Thus in the detective story “The Purloined Letter” (1844) Poe pointed¬ ly reveals that the detective Dupin is also a poet. It is he, using poetic gifts, who can solve mysteries that elude the dead and unpoetic logic of the prefect of police. In “The Domain of Arnheim” (1842-47), Ellison can transform the environment to make it embody the Edenic beauty that was the earth’s in remote times past. Ellison is a landscape architect because, the narrator explains, the creation of landscape provides the freest scope for the poet. So because poetic inspiration gives truth and is in itself founded in the essence of the universe, Eureka, a book that offers inspired revelation of the true nature of the universe, is a poem. As the annotations make clear, Eureka is closely intertwined with both Poe’s prose and his poetry. The notes point to numerous echoes of his poems, but there are also echoes of his poetic theory. In his criticism, Poe explains how poets deliberately play upon readers’ minds, making asso¬ ciations and constructing effects. In paragraph 188 and elsewhere, he confesses that Eureka is built the same way, poetically, through “graduated impression”rather than through a “merely natural. . . arrangement.” One more sense, then, in which it is a “poem,” despite Poe’s famous dictum that a long poem is impossible. At a stage at which Poe seemed not yet to have devised the subtitle A Prose Poem, the notion that Eureka was a poem occurred to a journalist. Hence it is also possible that Poe did not think to call Eureka a poem until the idea was given him by a reviewer in the New York Express, who said, “The work has all the completeness and oneness of plot required in a poem” (Pollin, “Contemporary Reviews of Eureka, ” 27).2 The notes locate and discuss those sections in Eureka that refer to its poetic nature. This essay, however, seems the proper place to mention a famous contradiction: Poe says emphatically in his criticism that a long poem cannot exist, for no reader can remain for long in the state of high 2. Burton R. Pollin (BRP) also points out a number of passages in Eureka in which Poe uses lan¬ guage poetically. Of the phrase “partial and pain-intertangled pleasures” in paragraph 266, for example, he writes, “This phrase, based on its poignant Poe-created compound, is composed of iambic rhythms and cleverly mingles plosives (e.g., ‘p’ and ‘t’) which help toward the gener¬ al “prose poem” effect that Poe promised in his subtitle.” Both kindly and conscientious is Bar¬ bara Cantalupo’s “Eureka: Poe’s ‘Novel Universe,”’ a discussion of reactions to Eureka. It covers this debate about how to classify Eureka and other areas of confusion.

•XV-

INTRODUCTION elevation of soul that is (to Poe) the nature of true poetic response. Eu¬ reka cannot be read in one sitting. Yet Poe called it a poem. No matter. If his entitling Eureka a poem is inconsistent with such statements in his criticism, the criticism itself is sometimes contradictory, too. Indeed, Poe’s ayguments are frequently contradictory throughout his writings. Yet while the major criticism is sometimes contradictory, it consistent¬ ly makes use of the same allusions, references, citations, quotations, pet sayings, and turns of phrase. Eureka does as well. Poe’s criticism, his oth¬ er nonfiction prose, and his fiction as well are built from a single store¬ house of material. Indeed, Poe sometimes uses the same “example” in different places to support opposite sides of an argument. The relation¬ ship between Eureka and Poe’s statements of literary theory is especially close, as the notes show. Four characteristics unite most of Poe’s work: the presence of a body of reusable ideas, phrases, allusions, and quotations; an apparent belief in supernal inspiration; a craftsmanlike concern with strong effect; and high intelligence. The first is not substantive, the second is sometimes undercut or parodied. The third and fourth are almost always in evidence. All four are present in Eureka, and their interaction needs to be assessed. Poe complains in various pieces about transcendentalism in general and about Ralph Waldo Emerson in particular, but he is often philosoph¬ ically very close to Emerson. Paragraph 22 provides a convenient illus¬ tration. In it, Poe’s narrator speaks of “the great thoroughfare—the ma¬ jestic highway of the Consistent. ”In his great poem “Blight,” Emerson uses same to mean just about what Poe does in paragraph 22 by “consistent”: The old men studied magic in the flowers, And human fortunes in astronomy, And an omnipotence in chemistry, Preferring things to names, for these were men, Were Unitarians of the united world, And, wheresoever their clear eye-beams fell. They caught the footsteps of the same. Our eyes Are armed, but we are strangers to the stars. {Poems, ed. Emerson, 140) Emerson in fact deals with science just the way Poe does. The complaint of “Blight” is the complaint of Poe’s “Sonnet—To Science.” Specialized research by itself is sterile. It lacks the unifying poetic vision that Hum¬ boldt and other visionary scientist-artists share. The sources of the vision

•xvi-

INTRODUCTION are in the nature of the universe itself: we poets sense sameness or con¬ sistency because all matter is also spirit, part of the original oneness.3 Indeed, even Emerson’s famous comment about consistency and hobgob¬ lins is worth comparing to Poe, as are the equally famous lines from Emerson’s poetic disciple Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes).” Both are matched in paragraph 22; Poe reserves to his poet-scientist the right to be inconsistent, as “our Keplers—our Laplaces” sometimes are. But he is sure that the universe itself is consistent. To the extent that it is serious, Eureka is a transcendental treatise. If it sounds in passages more like scripture than like scientific exposition, that is just the point. Emerson’s scholar, scientist, priest were all the same enlightened person. Poe’s, too. Eureka contains a good deal of satire, but it would not be accurate to call it “a satire”; it has too many other purposes for that label to be ap¬ propriate. Much of the material in the early portion of Eureka is used both here and in Poe’s satirical story “Mellonta Tauta,” but the satire is by no means limited to the material which Eureka shares with the story. Poe remains playful even in what one would imagine were the most serious passages in Eureka. In the opening of the story “The Imp of the Perverse” (1845), Poe has a reliable-sounding narrator explain the logical danger of imposing upon reality—in this case, the nature of the human mind—properties that it would be reasonable to expect to find, instead of beginning with prop¬ erties that can be observed. Poe says in the passage following paragraphs 238 and 239 in Eureka that astronomers make a similar mistake. His rhet3. Speaking of paragraphs 215, 235, and 236, BRP has asked whether the basic mood of Eureka is euphoric or pessimistic because the “‘fulfillment’ of God’s plan will mean the death of the universe and the extinction of human life. This accords with the frequent tone of despair, with the contemplation of the happiness of man’s soul only after death (as in the ‘Heavenly Dialogue’ tales) and with the sickly and morbid nature and tone of many of his characters and settings, both in fiction and poetry. By maintaining an astronomic distance—as the observer in Eureka— he manages to adduce a rapturous appreciation of the divine plot, but it must encompass the termination, as Poe held true also, of man’s artistic planning.” BRP wonders why Poe “excludes ordinary human considerations from his contemplation of the ‘perfect plot’ of creation which leads back to the ‘unity’ of the original particle. He therefore ignores the death of all species, including the human, as being a deplorable consummation of the creative plan.” The answer is easy to provide, although, of course, it is not satisfactory to the reader who does not accept Poe’s mystical-materialistic premises. If man is of the stuff of the original atom and that atom and the godhead are the same, if matter and spirit are one, then man is not destroyed when the universe returns to its original state; he rather is reunited (“reunited”?). Matter and spirit “go hand in hand,” as they do in mystical thought and in Poe’s apocalyptic tales.

• X V 1 1 •

INTRODUCTION oric in this section strongly reminds one of the argument in the short story: it seems reasonable that there exists a resisting ether; by analogy, one ought to exist. But there is none. In “The Imp of the Perverse,” the plausible narrator who explained the fallacy to us turns out to be insane, a homicidal maniac. Now, the parallel logic in two passages on the na¬ ture of scientific assumptions does not prove anything; it would be rash to claim, dogmatically, that Poe gleefully inserted this argument in order to undermine everything he was advocating in Eureka. But one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the parallel situation was in his mind, either. The notes to Eureka identify so many places where Poe quotes lit¬ erally from his criticism, his fiction, or his satirical prose or reuses allu¬ sions or quotations that had for him connotations that seem foreign to their contexts in this work, that one wonders about his attitude. To put it differently: one can prove that Poe is playing private literary games in so many places in Eureka that one questions whether to trust anything in the book. Poe played such games throughout his career. It seems to have tickled him to deck out some old trouper of a passage in new clothes and send it onstage in a fresh role. This practice is further evidence of the complexity of his attitude toward Eureka. It should make the reader wary. Indeed, Poe’s practices as a writer raise fundamental questions about his attitude. One has the right to ask whether sometimes his sleight of hand implies a certain underlying contempt for the reader. Was Poe think¬ ing, “The fools will never notice that my great scientific-philosophic-poetic Eureka is really a collage, pasted together from scraps lifted from other writers and my own miscellaneous writings on totally different, mostly inappropriate, subjects”? That is too simple, however. No one such ex¬ planation will account for the strangeness of Eureka. Portions of Eureka, moreover, are simply wild. Paragraph 185, for exam¬ ple, begins with an extended sexual metaphor and ends with a deliberately obscure sentence on genius and madness. This is interesting, for Poe is normally very precise in syntax. When he is not, his “error” is intentional, as when he makes up a syntactically ambiguous title for a work on duel¬ ling in his story “Mystification” {Short Fiction, 469). The writing error is deliberate, it is there to say that justifications of duelling are nonsense. The plot says the same. Poe is very different in this from the early Melville, whose syntax in the novels published between 1846 and 1852 was splen¬ didly enthusiastic and energetic but not always correct, abounding espe¬ cially in dangling sentence elements. Melville’s prose becomes almost • x v i i i •

INTRODUCTION bookishly correct in his magazine work during the 1850s and in the post¬ humous and incompletely revised Billy Budd. Perhaps this later Melville is instructive for Eureka. One suspects that the few dangling modifiers that remain in Billy Budd are deliberate because they come in places at which Melville had philosophical reasons for obscuring meaning. That may be what is going on in paragraph 185 of Eureka. Caveat lector. Eureka also contains some bad writing. Poe is so good a craftsman that only readers who know him well will remember comparable lapses.4 Some¬ times the sloppy sections in Eureka deal with issues that seem important to him. Poe’s comments on the size of the universe, for instance, are re¬ vealing. At the close of the book, in paragraph 266, he says that he feels the universe to be finite in size but that there may be infinite numbers of other universes. That seems consistent with his philosophical stance. In the earlier discussion of the enormous size of the universe (see ft 93, ^[ig4, and the passages surrounding them), however, Poe was plainly padding, reworking material of only journalistic interest. A sentence or two would have said as much and not have so impeded the flow of the argument. The reader thinks of similarly nonfunctional padding: the pages of deadwood in “The Mystery of Marie Roget” or the section in Poe’s only completed novel, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym (183738), wherein he goes on for pointless pages explaining the proper meth¬ od of stowing cargo in the hold of a ship and then fails to use the expo¬ sition in his plot. On the subject of cosmic size, Poe could have said that it is hard to visualize such immense distances and let it go at that. The passage he included might be reasonably effective as a popular magazine article or a Sunday feature-section filler but strikes one as inappropriate in a visionary “Poem.” We wonder again about seriousness and intention. Questioned about the target of some of his fictional satires, Poe re¬ sponded that the satires did not have just one target but that he was rather hitting out in a number of directions. It is enlightening to bear that in mind in reading Eureka. Poe was likely doing a number of things. It is impossible ever to be sure when Poe is truly committed to an idea. Eureka comes with serious credentials; Poe made a number of statements about how deeply he believed what he had found. One senses perhaps that to some extent the satire and play are present because they serve to 4. BRP, who certainly knows Poe well, points out numerous instances in Collected Writings of Edgar

Allan Poe (e.g., the Introduction to The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, 117-8 passim). This is a different matter, probably, from the complaints of critics who simply find Poe’s writing overdone, excessive, and vulgar. Aldous Huxley’s Vulgarity in Literature is a case in point.

•XIX-

INTRODUCTION “protect him,” to allow him to say, in effect, “I’m just kidding,” in case what he had done seemed foolish in the eyes of readers and authorities. Yet such a conclusion is hardly congruent with an important charac¬ teristic of this unusual book, its skill and accuracy as scientific summary. Valery was right—Poe is very good at briefing lay readers on the state of knowledge in several fields. Throughout Eureka Poe makes a reasonably conscientious effort to bring his book into line with the latest available information about the nature of the cosmos. This was a difficult job, because in 1848 there was a great deal of “late-breaking news,” even about such seemingly elementary matters as the number of planets and moons in our solar system or in such basic information such as whether nebu¬ lae existed. Poe attempts also to stake out a little factual and interpretive scientific turf he can call his own. This accounts for the occasional quibbling with authorities and with the popularizer J. P. Nichol. Were Eureka more un¬ ified in intention, the quibbling would be unnecessary; Poe could confine himself to a main argument and not bother with fussbudget points on which, as often as not, he is wrong. The “main argument,” we take it, is the one about the essential underlying unity of creation and the rhythm of universal expansion and contraction. Poe argues that gravity is the force by which all matter tries to return to its “normal” state of oneness. Only God’s “Volition” caused matter to “radiate” in the first place. So the uni¬ verse of matter is finite in size and in age and is currently in its second, final, contracting phase. (There may, however, be other universes, other “gods” as already noted—see the very end of Eureka.) Given the grandeur of this scheme, there is inconsistency of tone whenever Poe feels com¬ pelled to insist, somewhat shrilly, that he can hold his own with anyone in explaining and interpreting physics and astronomy. Poe s summary of scientific matters is in general excellent; he under¬ stood most available astronomical theory. His summaries of the argu¬ ments of different scientists, as the notes indicate, are very competent. The scientific speculation and theorizing are consistently intelligent and no more rhetorically overblown than other comparable statements of the era. Nichol gushes, and Humboldt is very florid. There exists a literature by Poe fans about how Poe predicted twentieth-century physics and as¬ tronomy. This does not strike us as a fruitful argument; Poe did not mag¬ ically predict Einstein or intuit subatomic physics. One can, however, at least say that Poe knew the sorts of basic questions that science was go¬ ing to face. He did think through intelligently the implications of what

•xx-

INTRODUCTION was known in his day. Our notes compare the hypotheses and data in Eureka with contemporary (2004) theory. Poe had a strong sense that nature would turn out to be unified by some very basic principle. So did Einstein, but that conviction seems to have betrayed Einstein when it came to quantum mechanics. Moreover, at the present writing, the characteristics of the strange new particles being discovered make scientists unsure whether in fact one is going to be able to make broad statements about the ultimate “unity” and nature of either basic processes or of matter. Certainly, Poe does not anticipate “Super¬ string” theory, the controversial ten-dimensional hypothesis we read about today. But in paragraph 57 he does say that science has not yet named what is most basic to the makeup of the cosmos. Poe is surprisingly good on some issues. Bruce Twarog, our scientific consultant, says that Poe’s understanding of space and time is unusually advanced for his day. His notion that electricity is only part of a complex of forces is also prescient.5 As Poe’s general scheme may loosely be said to be equivalent to the “Big Bang” theory, so his notion of the “reciproc¬ ity” of matter and energy (see

252—53 especially, where Poe is explic¬

it) is roughly akin to the modern understanding of the relationship rep¬ resented by Einstein’s e = me2. In paragraph 251, Poe even says that if all matter came together, it could not continue to exist: a reader inclined to press the issue could claim that Poe was intuiting something roughly like a black hole.6 Poe comes close to anticipating astrophysical specula¬ tion that the universe is ultimately going to coalesce because it lacks sufficient energy to escape its own gravity. But in general, one cannot take his science and project it literally toward the present. One is not saying

5. Might Poe have seen comparable ideas in the writings of Michael Faraday (1791-1861) (BRP) ? That is possible, reports Twarog, who adds that because Faraday’s “suggestions were quite original and primarily conjecture,” Poe’s statements would show an unusual degree of insight even were they in response to Faraday. The mathematical work that carried Faraday’s specula¬ tion beyond conjecture was done much later, long after Poe’s death, by James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). 6. Black holes in a sense much closer to the modern concept had been postulated before Eure¬ ka, as BRP points out. Laplace, in the early editions of The System of the World (Paris, 1796, 1799 and later; in English, London, 1809, 1830, etc.) speculated about the possibility of a star so large and dense that its gravitational field would prevent the escape of its own light: “any light emit¬ ted from the surface of the star would be dragged back by the star’s gravitational attraction before it could get very far.” We quote the summary of the issue given by Hawking (A Brief History of Time, 82). Hawking points out (81-82) that the idea had been suggested independently byjohn Mitchell in 1783. But in fact that is not what Poe was saying in paragraph 251; Poe is talking about the end of the universe, the final coalescence with the godhead.

•XXI-

INTRODUCTION anything very bad about Poe in pointing out that some of his predictions and generalizations are wrong. His well-informed contemporaries, includ¬ ing those in the sciences, made errors as gross as his. Poe’s universe con¬ tracts; ours is still expanding. But Eureka is very successful as a brief in¬ troduction to good mid-century knowledge of the cosmos. Poe was a solid journalist and knew how to gather and splice material of this sort. Poe also speaks of something he calls the “spiritual ether,” which in¬ cludes electricity and other forces. Poe’s idea of seeing electricity as one among several other forces, as yet not well defined, is an interesting guess or projection; it is not totally unlike what is being learned about the func¬ tions of sub-atomic particles. At the present writing, science is more than a little uncertain about whether research is indeed going to find one clear and underlying particle, principle, or unity or whether “first causes” will turn out to be ambiguous, relativistic, and changeable, depending on how the scientist approaches them. Such ambiguity seems to run counter to Poe’s assumptions, for he equates God with unity and regularity. On this subject, then, one cannot say, “Poe loosely predicted our present under¬ standing.” At best, one can say, “Poe loosely predicted much of what sci¬ ence believed a few years ago.” All things considered, it is fair to say that Poe, despite the bunko in Eureka, was thinking in the right directions, certainly speculating creatively. Moreover, this aspect of Eureka is fascinating, for it lets the reader see how far a good mind furnished with a decent understanding of the best relevant science of the 1840s, and making philosophical assumptions characteristic of that era, could go. During Poe’s lifetime the sciences were, by necessity, becoming specialized; earlier, one informed person could be simultaneously at the forefront of what we now consider sever¬ al sciences; he might also, like Franklin or Jefferson, be important in fields outside of science. Specialization changed all this as Poe and his contem¬ poraries watched. That Poe was a freshman at Jefferson’s university and may well have seen the old man when he visited the campus shows with what terrible speed the world had advanced, for multifacted careers on Jefferson’s scale had come to be impossible. Indeed, the Romantic move¬ ment in literature was largely a protest againstjust that specialization, an attempt by artists to reassert the power of the arts as a path not just to beauty but to universal truths as well. Hence Shelley’s “A Defense of Po¬ etry” (1822), Emerson’s “Blight,” and many of the Poe works cited in the notes. They are cited generally because Eureka shares ideas, phrases, al-

• x x 1 1 •

INTRODUCTION fusions, strings of association, and in one case entire pages of prose with them. As already noted, this connection shows how Poe reuses material, but it may indicate more. Many of the works that echo in Eureka are about the nature of inspiration and the perception of truth, beauty, and ulti¬ mate knowledge. (Poe, however, is also on the other side; always contra¬ dictory, it is he who asserts that “Beauty,” not “Truth,” is a poet’s province, thus apparendy accepting for the poet the specialized role of producer of pretties and no more.) Eureka must in part be seen as a component of the movement to reclaim the artist’s credentials: the artist alone could see underlying unities. Poe’s praise for figures in science history—such as Humboldt—who had the poetic gift and could therefore generalize powerfully is important; Poe unquestionably hopes that Eureka will put him in their number—while at the same time hedging in order to protect his psyche in case Eureka fails. Poetic insight was indispensable if science were to be creative. But Poe knew that the sciences were bestowing benefits, too. He speaks in Eureka of how spirit and matter are one. It seemed to most informed people in Poe’s day that science was in fact providing material proof of spirituality. The popularized embodiments of the idea—quack Mesmerism, spiritu¬ alism, and, a little later, Christian Science—suggest how widespread such notions were. That electricity played a large part in the workings of the human nervous system was well known and very suggestive. The tele¬ graph, developed and implemented in Poe’s maturity, was understood as an analogous device. The relationship of magnetism to electricity had been long since established. Perhaps “animal magnetism,” studied seri¬ ously before it fell to charlatans, was based on a cosmic principle of the greatest importance: spirit and matter indeed would turn out to be the same. The passages in paragraphs 132 and 154, in which Poe repeats his idea about the relationship between gravity and electricity, are important for understanding the sense of educated people in Poe’s generation that science would shortly prove spirituality. As Poe writes, “The Body and the Soul walk hand in hand.” The idea that science provided material proof of spirituality received widespread circulation in the century preceding Eureka. As George Woodberry7 and Carol Maddison (“Poe’s Eureka”) point out, Roger Joseph Boscovich’s Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in 7. For Woodberry, see Poe, The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Edmund Clarence Stedman and George Woodberry.

• X X 1 1 1 •

INTRODUCTION natura existentium (Vienna, 1758), which speculated about attraction and repulsion in an attempt to reconstruct a godly universe out of hints in Newton, was enormously popular and widely known. Maddison does not establish that Poe knew it; indeed, Poe nowhere mentioned Boscovich’s name (Pollin, Dictionary of Names and Titles), and, in point of fact, Bos¬ covich’s theory is not very much like the theory of repulsion as “soul” that Poe develops in paragraph 55 and following (see especially ^58). But it is simply true that romantic intellectuals thought along such lines: New¬ tonian gravity suggested “holistic” theories for the cosmos; electricity seemed at once physical and spiritual. The overthrow of the phlogiston theory and its replacement by a chem¬ istry that recognized oxygen serves to symbolize transformations in a number of basic sciences at approximately the turn of the nineteenth century. Modernization theorists point out that that is also the era in which the characteristics of modernization—such as specialization, indus¬ trialization, and urbanization—begin to transform our society.8 Eureka is a document of the first generation in human history to have the new sciences, instantaneous communication, machine-powered transporta¬ tion. It is an attempt, whatever its seriousness, to generalize broadly and poetically as great science had in the past, to deal with the bewildering torrent of new data in terms that would allow a position of honor and power to the truth-giver, the inspired poet-scientist. It is thus akin to such diverse attempts to understand the changed world as Humboldt’s Kosmos, romantic poetry, transcendentalism, and even the new religions that sprang up in the United States at mid-century. Its con¬ tents and its argument would not have been as shocking for many read¬ ers as one might suppose; many people were in fact accustomed to en¬ countering the idea that science and spirit might be compatible. What is known of the reception of lecture and book bear this out, as does the fact that Eureka did not cause nearly the sensation that Poe hoped it would. Readers are familiar with popularized accounts of the appearances of masterpieces that say that contemporary critical reception was hostile because the works ruffled feathers or because reviewers were somehow not ready for or unable to understand them. Herman Melville again pro¬ vides convenient comparison, for older discussions of Melville generally make such statements about the contemporary reception of Moby-Dick. But 8. A full discussion of Poe in

terms of Modernization Theory appears in Levine, “Poe and Soci¬

ety,” which includes explanation of relevant aspects of Modernization Theory and a list of in¬ troductory works in the field.

•XXIV*

INTRODUCTION to tell the truth, although the great book of course failed to find a large contemporary audience, a close look at all the reviews that greeted it shows that some were more accurate than one might expect. Although MobyDick did receive hostile notices, it also received several that were very fa¬ vorable; some individual readers, moreover, fully understood what Mel¬ ville had set out to do. Hawthorne understood, and Melville responded with a supremely exultant letter. It is by no means clear that Eureka is a comparable masterpiece. But as a matter of fact, although Poe was done an injustice, contemporary re¬ ception of Eureka by and large will strike many modern readers as just and accurate. There exists an excellent overview of the contemporary reviews (Pollin, “Contemporary Reviews of Eureka”). The HomeJournal said, “Poe boldly disavows induction for his theory of the universe in favor of scien¬ tific inspiration. All is attraction and repulsion in this suggestive work of phantasy, sounding like the Vestiges of Creation and close in ideas to Swe¬ denborg’s.” A Swedenborgian publication notes ways in which Poe ap¬ proximates Emanuel Swedenborg but complains about “pantheism.” There is a strongly laudatory review in the New York Evening Express, which Pollin summarizes: “The most elaborate and profound lecture ever heard, unified in thought and ‘in plot’ like ‘a poem’ but with the detail and accuracy of a scientific lecture. Summarizes the theory and argument in florid metaphors and calls it an extraordinary work of ‘Art,’ of searching analysis, metaphysical acumen, and unsurpassed passion for ideals, from a man whose uncommon powers are still growing.” Even a generally con¬ demnatory long review in the Literary World by John H. Hopkins, Jr., is wary because Hopkins thinks that Eureka might “be a scientific hoax from the ingenious narrator of ‘The Maelstrom.’” There is similar hedging in a review by an Amherst student, John Milton Emerson, in a college mag¬ azine, the Amherst Indicator; the review is snide, but the reviewer confesses uncertainty in matters scientific (Walker, Edgar Allan Poe). Pollin writes that the space accorded in New York City newspapers to Poe’s lecture is small when one compares it to the space awarded to cov¬ erage of J. P. Nichol’s series of talks on astronomy or to another course of lectures, this on biblical history by a man named Enoch Cobb Wines, running at the same time. Still, looking over the reviews and thinking both of the very peculiar nature of Poe’s lecture and book and the spate of puzzling new works that appeared at that time, it is hard not to feel that contemporary reviewers on the whole did a very decent job of describ¬ ing and assessing Eureka. •XXV-

INTRODUCTION The Publication of Eureka A useful article by Burton R. Pollin reviews what is known about how Eureka was published (“Contemporary Views of ‘Eureka ’): what was to have been a lecture tour to promote a magazine that Poe had been trying to found was reduced to a single talk in New York. The content of the pre¬ sentation perhaps changed from Poe’s essay “The Rationale of Verse” to his nearly completed Eureka (or, as Pollin jokes, “from verse to universe”). Poe enlisted friends to help fund and publicize the event, but dread¬ ful weather, competing lectures, and a colleague’s forgetfulness limited the turnout. Still, some hardy journalists who had press passes attended, and there were write-ups in the newspapers. Pollin judiciously calls these “mildly favorable,” but they might have convinced Poe to take the manu¬ script when he completed it to the publisher, Putnam. There is some epis¬ tolary evidence (Poe, Letters of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Ostrom, 361, 363, 364, 365) of Poe s publication plans. The talk came on February 3, 1848, a book contract in May, and the book appeared in late June. Variations in the title, Pollin figures, reflect first, the lecture tide (on the spine, the book is called Eureka or the Universe); and, second, a phrase from one of the reviews—’’The work has all the completeness and one¬ ness of plot required in a poem.” (On the half-title page the wording is Eureka. A Prose Poem) (Poe, The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Stedman and Woodberry, 376.) Moreover, Pollin was correct in saying that if Poe is behind the differ¬ ences between the full title {Eureka: An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe) and the title given in the Putnam advertisements (Eureka: A Prose Poem. Or the Physical and Metaphysical Universe), the difference is im¬ portant. The Pollin article also points to the language of a review in the NewWorld in which the writer speaks of Poe’s “select and nervous diction” and “lofty language” (“Empedocles in Poe,” 378). Those phrases very forcibly suSSes*- the famous passage in chapter sixteen of Moby-Dick that includes the phrase “a bold and nervous lofty language.” There is likely a trail running between the two passages, for Melville, like Poe, had strong ties to New York journalism. That issue is beyond the proper scope of this introduction but serves to remind readers again that Eureka is of its time and place. Considering connections, influences, and borrowings should not di¬ minish Eureka but rather make it less strange. It is plainly a product of •xxvi-

INTRODUCTION the science of the day and of a moment in the history of science when the promise of science seemed cosmically bright. It is a product of the history of philosophy. It is a product of a critical moment in literary his¬ tory as well, when the artist felt threatened as never before. If its tone seems to modern readers to run to excess, they should compare it to the contemporary documents to which it refers. The Kosmos of Humboldt is at least as passionate and poetic. Nothing in Eureka approaches the cra¬ ziness of the writings of F. M. C. Fourier. Whenjoseph Wood Krutch wrote that Poe’s “works bear no conceivable relation, either external or inter¬ nal, to the life of any people” and that “it is impossible to account for them on the basis of any social or intellectual tendencies or as the expression of the spirit of any age,” he was simply wrong {Edgar Allan Poe, 192, 193). Eureka is a window on the 1840s.

• x x v 1 1

ABBREVIATIONS FOR BOOKS AND AUTHORITIES CITED Frequently used sources for which we use initials or abbreviated titles in notes and commentaries. Further bibliographical data appear in the Bib¬ liography. BRP

Complete Works Short Fiction

Thirty-Two Stories TOM

Twarog Collected Works

Collected Writings

Notes and suggestions from Burton R. Pollin, who went over drafts of this edition, adding numerous suggestions, and making queries. Edgar Allan Poe, Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. James A. Harrison. Edgar Allan Poe, The Short Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe: An Annotated Edition, ed. Stuart Levine and Susan F. Levine. Edgar Allan Poe, Edgar Allan Poe / Thirty-Two Stories, ed. Stuart Levine and Susan F. Levine. Thomas Ollive Mabbott, notes in the Special Collec¬ tions Department, University of Iowa Library, Iowa City. Consultations with Bruce Twarog, professor of phys¬ ics and astronomy, University of Kansas. Edgar Allan Poe, Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Thomas Ollive Mabbott. See Bibliography. One printing of this edition uses consecutive volume numbers, the other does not. Edgar Allan Poe, Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Burton R. Pollin, vols. 1-4.

•xxix-

EDITORIAL METHOD

A Note on the Text There are four copies of the 1848 Putnam edition of Eureka in which Poe wrote changes; sometimes he also jotted down notes to himself, such as “Here describe the whole process as one instantaneous flash,” which comes at the end of paragraph 96. We have followed Nelson’s sensible suggestion to prefer readings from the last and most extensive revision, the “Hurst-Wakeman” copy that Poe annotated in the summer of 1849, and our text incorporates those. The changes are not very numerous or extensive, but they do make it impossible to duplicate the page and line number system that Richard P. Benton added in his facsimile edition. So we decided, at Burton R. Pollin’s suggestion, to number the paragraphs as T. O. Mabbott had done in preparation for the edition he planned. Note, however, that Poe de¬ cided to begin a new paragraph (see 1105) in one of his penciled emen¬ dations. Small letters in the text identify places in which our text differs from the 1848 Putnam edition or in which Poe made annotations of any sort. Lettered footnotes show what occurred at each place where alteration or note appears. See also “A Note on Variant Readings,” below.

A Note on Poe’s Notes Where Poe made corrections or additions to the text, we accepted his changes, indicating each with a small raised letter that guides the reader to a comparison of alteration and original in the list of variants. Poe also added some new footnotes, most including asterisks. We accepted these as well, placing each on the page where it occurs, just as he treated his published footnotes. After each new footnote we add an explanation in parentheses. These footnotes are not listed among the variants. Poe penciled in some notes to himself as well. We reproduce these also

• x x x 1 •

EDITORIAL METHOD on the pages where they occur rather than in the variants and provide explanations in parentheses. The note at the close of paragraph 140 is especially interesting. Nel¬ son suggests that it is Poe’s memorandum to himself. Knowing Poe’s fond¬ ness for claiming to have predicted events, we think he meant to use it in a revised edition by way of bragging.

A Note on Variant Readings Lettered footnotes identify variant readings in places in which Poe annotated his own text in order to correct typographical errors, to alter words, phrases, or paragraphing, to add new footnotes, or to jot down notes to himself. See “A Note on the Text” for an explanation of our policy for establishing a critical text. In the lettered footnotes, P

= The 1848 Putnam edition, available in a facsimile edition (Benton).

O

— The Osborne copy, annotated in July 1848, nowin rare book department, Alderman Library, University of Virginia.

W

- The Whitman copy, annotated in October 1848, now in the Lilly Library at Indiana University.

NM = The Nelson-Mabbott copy, annotated in January and June 1849, now in the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas, Austin. HW = The Hurst-Wakeman copy, annotated in the summer of 1849, now in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York City. To make the lettered footnotes as uniform and easy to use as possible, we list in each case all readings, chronologically, with the one we adopt¬ ed in italics and with explanations when appropriate immediately follow¬ ing. For example, had Poe used “green” in Putnam, “blue” in Nelson-Mab¬ bott, and “purple” in Hurst-Wakeman, we would select “purple,” and the item would read: P green / NM blue / HW purple. In cases in which Poe intended italics, we add the bracketed word [italics] for clarity. In a few cases, we made changes for consistency in places which Poe and earlier editors seem to have missed. We list these here: In paragraph 209, a word Poe several times hyphenated, “cannon-ball,” occurs at the line’s end with¬ out a hyphen. In several places in Eureka, Poe restored hyphens in simi-

• X X X 1 1 •

EDITORIAL METHOD lar situations when the printer left them out; several times he spelled “cannon-ball” with a hyphen, so we restored it, assuming Poe missed one here. In paragraph 23, he neglected to close a quotation within a quota¬ tion; we closed it in brackets. Similarly, in paragraph 58, where Poe add¬ ed capital letters on “Matter,” “Attraction,” and “Repulsion,” he missed one, which we added in brackets. In some cases we made decisions by analogy, looking for similar cases in Poe’s fiction because the fiction has been word-indexed by Pollin (Word Index to Poe’s Fiction). In paragraph 218: “washer-womanish” does not ap¬ pear in the fiction, so it is not in Pollin’s Word Index (its use here in Eure¬ ka is duly noted in Pollin, Poe, Creator of Words). But the similar “old-wom¬ anish” does appear in the fiction, so we retained the hyphen. In paragraph 221 we hyphenated “non-luminous.” It is in Pollin’s Word Index but not in Nelson (“Apparatus for a Definitive Edition”). It plainly should be hyphenated; it appears with a hyphen later in the same paragraph. In paragraph 246 appears the word climacic. Some editors have altered it to “climactic,” but because Pollin {Poe, Creator of Words) lists both “cli¬ macic” and “climacing,” we assume that Poe coined and intended it. And in paragraph 178, Poe writes “excentrically.” Although Pollin {Word In¬ dex to Poe’s Fiction) shows that Poe usually spelled the word “eccentrical¬ ly,” we let the odd spelling stand because it appears in one of his sources for Eureka. The matter is explained in the note to paragraph 178. For the convenience of readers using Nelson’s “Apparatus for a Defini¬ tive Edition,” we have also added (in parentheses) indications of places in which that list of variants seems in error and of readings he decided to reject but we reproduce as variants. Neither is intended as criticism of Nelson. The latter is simply a matter of editorial policy. And as for ap¬ parent errors: these sometimes creep in after a document has left an ed¬ itor’s control. Would that we could be certain our own work were with¬ out errors. James A. Harrison’s edited Complete Works (16:319-36) includes a list¬ ing of Poe’s handwritten material from the Hurst-Wakeman copy, and Nelson warns that he “noted ten errors when comparing the Harrison [i.e., Complete Works] list to the actual variants as found in the Hurst-Wake¬ man copy” (178). Our text of Eureka differs from that in Complete Works in that when it was plain that Poe had caught an error or intended to change his published text we accepted his corrections and alterations in our text and presented the rejected published version in the Variants. Harrison, in contrast, presented the 1848 published volume as his text • x x x i i i •

EDITORIAL METHOD and reproduced the Hurst-Wakeman corrections and notes separately. He did not offer a list of handwritten material in the Osborne or Nelson-Mabbott copies. It seemed preferable in the lettered footnotes to add a few words of explanation as needed rather than to design an elaborate code. In this way a reader can determine what are the features of a given text or pas¬ sage without undue leafing back and forth.

• x x x 1 v •

EUREKA: A PROSE POEM.

by

EDGAR A. POE.

New-York: Geo. P. Putnam of Late Firm of “Wiley 8c Putnam,” 155 Broadway. MDCCCXLVIII.

Entered,

according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, By EDGAR A. POE,

in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York.

Leavitt, Trow & Co Prs. 33 Ann-street

WITH VERY PROFOUND RESPECT,

Cljts; l^ork

fflebitateb

TO

ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.

PREFACE.

To the few who love me and whom I love—to those who feel rather than to those who think—to the dreamers and those who put faith in dreams as in the only realities—I offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constitut¬ ing it true. To these I present the composition as an Art-Product alone:— let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem. What I here propound is true:—therefore it cannot die:—or if by any means it be now trodden down so that it die, it will “rise again to the Life Ever¬ lasting.” Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged af¬ ter I am dead. E.A.P.

5

EUREKA: AN ESSAY ON THE MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL UNIVERSE

1

It is with humility really unassumed—it is with a sentiment even of awe—that I pen the opening sentence of this work;a for of all con¬ ceivable subjects I approach the reader with the most solemn—the most comprehensive—the most difficult—the most august.

2

What terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their sublimity— sufficiendy sublime in their simplicity—for the mere enunciation of my theme?

3

I design to speak of the Physical, Metaphysical and, Mathematical— of the Material and Spiritual Universe:—of its Essence, its Origin, its Cre¬ ation, its Present Condition and its Destiny. I shall be so rash, moreover, as to challenge the conclusions, and thus, in effect, to question the sagacity, of many of the greatest and most justly reverenced of men.

4

In the beginning, let me as distinctly as possible announce—not the theorem which I hope to demonstrate—for, whatever the math¬ ematicians may assert, there is, in this world at least, no such thing as demonstration—but the ruling idea which, throughout this volume, I shall be continually endeavoring to suggest.

5

My general proposition, then, is this:—In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.

6

In illustration of this idea, I propose to take such a survey of the Universe that the mind may be able really to receive and to perceive an individual impression.

7

He who from the top of Tftna casts his eyes leisurely around, is affected chiefly by the extent and diversity of the scene. Only by a rap¬ id whirling on his heel could he hope to comprehend the panora¬ ma in the sublimity of its oneness. But as, on the summit of TEtna, no man has thought of whirling on his heel, so no man has ever taken

a. P work: / HW work. See p. xxxii for explanation and key to abbreviations.

• 7 •

EUREKA. into his brain the full uniqueness of the prospect; and so, again, whatever considerations lie involved in this uniqueness, have as yet no practical existence for mankind. 8

I do not know a treatise in which a survey of the Universe—using the word in its most comprehensive and only legitimate accepta¬ tion—is taken at all:—and it may be as well here to mention that by the term “Universe,” wherever employed without qualification in this essay, I mean in most casesa to designate the utmost conceivable expanse of space, with all things, spiritual and material, that can be imagined to exist within the compass of that expanse. In speaking of what is ordinarily im¬ plied by the expression, “Universe,” I shall in most cases, againb take a phrase of limitation—“the Universe of Stars. ”c Why this distinction is considered necessary, will be seen in the sequel.

9

But even of treatises on the really limited, although always assumed as the Mnlimited, Universe of Stars,d I know none in which a survey, even of this limited Universe, is so taken as to warrant deductions from its individuality. The nearest approach to such a work is made in the “Cosmos” of Alexander Von Humboldt. He presents the sub¬ ject, however, notin its individuality but in its generality. His theme, in its last result, is the law of each portion of the merely physical Universe, as this law is related to the laws of every other portion of this merely physical Universe. His design is simply synoeretical. In a word, he discusses the universality of material relation, and discloses to the eye of Philosophy whatever inferences have hitherto lain hidden behind this universality. But however admirable be the succinctness with which he has treated each particular point of his topic, the mere multiplicity of these points occasions, necessarily, an amount of de¬ tail, and thus an involution of idea, which preclude all individuality of impression.

10

It seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and, through it, at the consequences—the conclusions—the suggestions—the speculations—or, if nothing better offer itself, the mere guesses which may result from it—we require something like a mental gy¬ ration on the heel. We need so rapid a revolution of all things about the central point of sight that, while the minutiae vanish altogeth-

a. P mean / HW mean in most cases b. P shall / HW shall in most cases, again c. P stars / HW Stars d. P stars [italics] / HW Stars [italics] [Nelson omits italics in both. We follow HW.]

• 8 •

THE UNIVERSE. er, even the more conspicuous objects become blended into one. Among the vanishing minutiae, in a survey of this kind, would be all exclusively terrestrial matters. The Earth would be considered in its planetary relations alone. A man, in this view, becomes Mankind; Mankind3 a member of the cosmical family of Intelligences. 11

And now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let me beg the reader’s attention to an extract or two from a somewhat remarkable letter, which appears to have been found corked in a bottle and floating on the Mare Tenebrarum—an ocean well described by the Nubian geographer, Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in modern days unless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers for crotchets. The date of this letter, I confess, surprises me even more particularly than its contents; for it seems to have been writ¬ ten in the year two thousand eight hundred and forty-eight. As for the passages I am about to transcribe, they, I fancy, will speak for themselves.

12

“Do you know, my dear friend,” says the writer, addressing, no doubt, a contemporary—“Do you know that it is scarcely more than eight or nine hundred years ago since the metaphysicians first con¬ sented to relieve the people of the singular fancy that there exist but two practicable roads to Truth? Believe it if you can! It appears, howev¬ er, that long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish philosopher called Aries and surnamed Tottle.” [Here, possibly, the letter-writer means Aristotle; the best names are wretchedly corrupt¬ ed in two or three thousand years.] “The fame of this great man de¬ pended mainly onb his demonstration that sneezing is a natural pro¬ vision, by means of which over-profound thinkers are enabled to expel superfluous ideas through the nose; but he obtained a scarcely less valuable celebrity as the founder, or at all events as the princi¬ pal propagator, of what was termed the deductive or a priori philos¬ ophy. He started with what he maintained to be axioms, or selfevident truths:—and the now well understood fact that no truths are self-evident, really does not make in the slightest degree against his speculations:—it was sufficient for his purpose that the truths in question were evident at all. From axioms he proceeded, logically, to results. His most illustrious disciples were one Tuclid, a geome¬ trician,” [meaning Euclid] “and one Kant, a Dutchman, the origi-

a. P mankind; mankind / HW Mankind; Mankind b. P upon / HW on

• 9 •

EUREKA. nator of that species of Transcendentalism which, with the change merely of a C for a K, now bears his peculiar name. 13

“Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent of one Hog, surnamed ‘the Ettrick shepherd,’ who preached an entirely different system, which he called the a posteriori or inductive. His plan referred altogether to sensation. He proceeded by observing, ana¬ lyzing, and classifying facts—instantice Naturce, as they were somewhat affectedly called—and arranging them into general laws. In a word, while the mode of Aries rested on noumena, that of Hog depended on phenomena; and so great was the admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first introduction, Aries fell into general disrepute. Finally, however, he recovered ground, and was permitted to divide the empire of Philosophy with his more modern rival:—the savansa contenting themselves with proscribing all other competitors, past, present, and to come; putting an end to all controversy on the topic by the promulgation of a Median law, to the effect that the Aristote¬ lian and Baconian roads are, and of right ought to be, the sole pos¬ sible avenues to knowledge:—‘Baconian,’ you must know, my dear friend,” adds the letter-writer at this point, “was an adjective invent¬ ed as equivalent to Hog-ian, whileb more dignified and euphonious.

14

“Now I do assure you most positively”—proceeds the epistle—“that I represent these matters fairly; and you can easily understand how restrictions so absurd on their very face must have operated, in those days, to retard the progress of true Science, which makes its most important advances—as all History will show—by seemingly intuitive leaps. These ancient ideas confined investigation to crawling; and I need not suggest to you that crawling, among varieties of locomo¬ tion, is a very capital thing of its kind;—but because the snailc is sure of foot, for this reason must we clip the wings of the eagles? For many centuries, so great was the infatuation, about Hog especially, that a virtual stop was put to all thinking, properly so called. No man dared utter a truth for which he felt himself indebted to his soul alone. It mattered not whether the truth was even demonstrably such; for the dogmatizing philosophers of that epoch regarded only the road by which it professed to have been attained. The end, with them, was a

a. P savans. [No variants in Poe. We include it here because some editors correct it to read sa¬ vants. Poe does not italicize savans.] b. P and at the same time / HW while c. P tortoise / HW snail

•

1

O

•

THE UNIVERSE. point of no moment, whatever:—‘the means!’ they vociferated—‘let us look at the means!’—and if, on scrutiny of the means, it was found to come neither under the category Hog, nor under the category Aries (which means ram), why then the savans went no farther, but, calling the thinker ‘a fool’a and branding him a ‘theorist,’ would never, thenceforward, have any thing to do either with him or with his truths. 15

“Now, my dear friend,” continues the letter-writer, “it cannot be maintained that by the crawling system, exclusively adopted, men would arrive at the maximum amount of truth, even in any long series of ages; for the repression of imagination was an evil not to be counterbalanced even by absolute certainty in the snail processes. But their certainty was very far from absolute. The error of our pro¬ genitors was quite analogous with that of the wiseacre who fancies he must necessarily see an object the more distinctly, the more closely he holds it to his eyes. They blinded themselves, too, with the impal¬ pable, titillating Scotch snuff of detail; and thus the boasted facts of the Hog-ites were by no means always facts—a point of little impor¬ tance but for the assumption that they always were. The vital taint, however, in Baconianism—its most lamentable fount of error—lay in its tendency to throw power and consideration into the hands of merely perceptive men—of those inter-Tritonic minnows, the micro¬ scopical savans—the diggers and pedlers of minute facts, for the most part in physical science—facts all of which they retailed at the same price onb the highway; their value depending, it was supposed, sim¬ ply upon the fact of their fact, without reference to their applicability or inapplicability in the development of those ultimate and only le¬ gitimate facts, called Law.

16

“Than the persons”—the letter goes on to say—“Than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy into a station for which they were unfitted—thus transferred from the sculleries into the parlors of Science—from its pantries into its pulpits—than these in¬ dividuals a more intolerant—a more intolerable set of bigots and ty¬ rants never existed on the face of the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one word fact’-—but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts with the view of putting them in order

a. P a fool / HW ‘a fool’ b. P upon / HW on

•11-

EUREKA. and to use, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at once by the words ‘theoretical,’ ‘theo¬ ry,’ ‘theorist’—all thought, to be brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon-engendered philosophers—one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg—were more wretchedly helpless—more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least, in ad¬ mitting that he knows absolutely nothing. 17

“Nor had our forefathers any better right to talk about certainty, when pursuing, in blind confidence, the a priori path of axioms, or of the Ram. At innumerable points this path was scarcely as straight as a ram’s-hom. The simple truth is, that the Aristotelians erected their castles ona a basis far less reliable than air; for no such things as axioms ever existed or can possibly exist at all. This they must have been very blind, indeed, not to see, or at least to suspect; for, even in their own day, many of their long-admitted ‘axioms’ had been abandoned:—‘ex nihilo nihilfit, ’ for example, and a ‘thing cannot act where it is not,’ and ‘there cannot be antipodes,’ and ‘darkness cannot proceed from light.’ These and numerous similar propositions formerly accepted, without hesitation, as axioms, or undeniable truths, were, even at the period of which I speak, seen to be altogether untenable:—how ab¬ surd in these people, then, to persist in relying upon a basis, as im¬ mutable, whose mutability had become so repeatedly manifest!

18

“But, even through evidence afforded by themselves against them¬ selves, it is easy to convict these a priori reasoners of the grossest un¬ reason—it is easy to show the futility—the impalpability of their axi¬ oms in general. I have now lying before me”—it will be observed that we still proceed with the letter—“I have now lying before me a book printed about a thousand years ago. Pundit assures me that it is de¬ cidedly the cleverest ancient work on its topic, which is ‘Logic.’ The author, who was much esteemed in his day, was one Miller, or Mill; and we find it recorded of him, as a point of some importance, that he rode a mill-horse whom he called Jeremy Bentham:—but let us glance at the volume itself!

19

Ah!— Ability or inability to conceive,’ says Mr. Mill very proper-

a. P upon / HW on

12-

•

THE UNIVERSE. ly, ‘is in no case to be received as a criterion of axiomatic truth.’ Now, that this is a palpable truism no one in his senses will deny. Not to admit the proposition, is to insinuate a charge of variability in Truth itself, whose very title is a synonym of the Steadfast. If ability to con¬ ceive be taken as a criterion of Truth, then a truth to David Hume would very seldom be a truth to Joe; and ninety-nine hundredths of what is undeniable in Heaven would be demonstrable falsity upon Earth. The proposition of Mr. Mill, then, is sustained. I will not grant it to be an axiom; and this merely because I am showing that no axi¬ oms exist; but, with a distinction which could not have been cavilled at even by Mr. Mill himself, I am ready to grant that, z/an axiom there be, then the proposition of which we speak has the fullest right to be considered an axiom—that no more absolute axiom is—and, consequendy, that any subsequent proposition which shall conflict with this one primarily advanced, must be either a falsity in itself—that is to say no axiom—or, if admitted axiomatic, must at once neutralize both itself and its predecessor. 20

“And, now, by the logic of their own propounder, let us proceed to test any one of the axioms propounded. Let us give Mr. Mill the fairest of play. We will bring the point to no ordinary issue. We will select for investigation no common-place axiom—no axiom of what, not the less preposterously because only impliedly, he terms his sec¬ ondary class—as if a positive truth by definition could be either more or less positively a truth:—we will select, I say, no axiom of an unquestionability so questionable as is to be found in Euclid. We will not talk, for example, about such propositions as that two straight lines cannot enclose a space, or that the whole is greater than any one of its parts. We will afford the logician every advantage. We will come at once to a proposition which he regards as the acme of the unques¬ tionable—as the quintessence of axiomatic undeniability. Here it is:—‘Contradictions cannot both be true—that is, cannot coexist in nature.’ Here Mr. Mill means, for instance,—and I give the most forcible instance conceivable—that a tree must be either a tree or not a tree—that it cannot be at the same time a tree and not a tree:— all which is quite reasonable of itself and will answer remarkably well as an axiom, until we bring it into collation with an axiom insisted upon a few pages before—in other words—words which I have pre¬ viously employed—until we test it by the logic of its own propound¬ er. ‘A tree,’ Mr. Mill asserts, ‘must be either a tree or not a tree.’ Very

*

1 3

•

EUREKA. well:—and now let me ask him, why. To this little query there is but one response:—I defy any man living to invent a second. The sole answer is this:—‘Because we find it impossible to conceive that a tree can be any thing else than a tree or not a tree.’ This, I repeat, is Mr. Mill’s sole answer:—he will not pretend to suggest another:—and yet, by his own showing, his answer is clearly no answer at all; for has he not already required us to admit, as an axiom, that ability or inability to conceive is in no case to be taken as a criterion of axiomatic truth? Thus all—absolutely all his argumentation is at sea without a rudder. Let it not be urged that an exception from the general rule is to be made, in cases where the ‘impossibility to conceive’ is so peculiarly great as when we are called upon to conceive a tree both a tree and not a tree. Let no attempt, I say, be made at urging this sotticism; for, in the first place, there are no degrees of ‘impossibility,’ and thus no one impossible conception can be more peculiarly impossible than another impossible conception:—in the second place, Mr. Mill him¬ self, no doubt after thorough deliberation, has most distinctly, and most rationally, excluded all opportunity for exception, by the em¬ phasis of his proposition, that, in no case, is ability or inability to con¬ ceive, to be taken as a criterion of axiomatic truth:—in the third place, even were exceptions admissible at all, it remains to be shown how any exception is admissible here. That a tree can be both a tree and not a tree, is an idea which the angels, or the devils, may enter¬ tain, and which no doubt many an earthly Bedlamite, or Transcendentalist, does. 21

“Now I do not quarrel with these ancients,” continues the letterwriter, “so much on account of the transparent frivolity of their logic— which, to be plain, was baseless, worthless and fantastic altogether— as on account of their pompous and infatuate proscription of all other roads to Truth than the two narrow and crooked paths—the one of creeping and the other of crawling—to which, in their ignorant perversity, they have dared to confine the Soul—the Soul which loves nothing so well as to soar in those regions of illimitable intuition which are utterly incognizant of ‘path. ’

22

“By the bye, my dear friend, is it not an evidence of the mental sla¬ very entailed upon those bigoted people by their Hogs and Rams, that in spite of the eternal prating of their savans about roads to Truth, none of them fell, even by accident, into what we now so distinctly perceive to be the broadest, the straightest and most available of all •14-

THE UNIVERSE. mere roads—the great thoroughfare—the majestic highway of the Consistent? Is it not wonderful that they should have failed to deduce from the works of God the vitally momentous consideration that a perfect consistency can be nothing but an absolute truth ? How plain—how rapid our progress since the late announcement of this proposition! By its means, investigation has been taken out of the hands of the ground-moles, and given as a duty, rather than as a task, to the true— to the only true thinkers—to the generally-educated men of ardent imagination. These latter—our Keplers—our Laplaces—‘speculate’— ‘theorize’—these are the terms—can you not fancy the shout of scorn with which they would be received by our progenitors, were it possi¬ ble for them to be looking over my shoulders as I write? The Keplers, I repeat, speculate—theorize—and their theories are merely correct¬ ed—reduced—sifted—cleared, little by little, of their chaff of incon¬ sistency—until at length there stands apparent an unencumbered Consistency—a consistency which the most stolid admit—because it is a consistency—to be an absolute and an unquestionable Truth. 23

“I have often thought, my friend, that it must have puzzled these dogmaticians of a thousand years ago, to determine, even, by which of their two boasted roads it is that the cryptographist attains the so¬ lution of the more complicate cyphers—or by which of them Champollion guided mankind to those important and innumerable truths which, for so many centuries, have lain entombed amid the phonetical hieroglyphics of Egypt. In especial, would it not have given these bigots some trouble to determine by which of their two roads was reached the most momentous and sublime of all their truths—the truth—the fact of gravitation ? Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted that these laws he guessed—these laws whose investigation disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in going be¬ hind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics. Yes!—these vital laws Kepler guessed—that is to say, he imagined them. Had he been asked to point out either the deductive or inductive route by which he attained them, his reply might have been—‘I know noth¬ ing about routes—but I do know the machinery of the Universe. Here it is. I grasped it with my soul—I reached it through mere dint of in¬ tuition. [ ’ ] Alas, poor ignorant old man! Could not any metaphysician have told him that what he called ‘intuition’ was but the conviction resulting from deductions or inductions of which the processes were

•

1 5

•

EUREKA. so shadowy as to have escaped his consciousness, eluded his reason, or bidden defiance to his capacity of expression? How great a pity it is that some ‘moral philosopher’ had not enlightened him about all this! How it would have comforted him on his death-bed to know that, instead of having gone intuitively and thus unbecomingly, he had, in fact, proceeded decorously and legitimately—that is to say Hog-ishly, or at least Ram-ishly—into the vast halls where lay gleaming, un¬ tended, and hitherto untouched by mortal hand—unseen by mortal eye—the imperishable and priceless secrets of the Universe! 24

‘Yes, Kepler was essentially a theorist; but this title, now of so much sanctity, was, in those ancient days, a designation of supreme con¬ tempt. It is only now that men begin to appreciate that divine old man—to sympathize with the prophetical and poetical rhapsody of his ever-memorable words. For my part,” continues the unknown correspondent, “I glow with a sacred fire when I even think of them, and feel that I shall never grow weary of their repetition:—in con¬ cluding this letter, let me have the real pleasure of transcribing them once again:— 7 care not whether my work be read now or by posterity. I can afford to wait a century for readers when God himself has waited six thou¬ sand years for an observer. I triumph. I have stolen the golden secret of the Egyptians. I will indulge my sacred fury.

25

Here end my quotations from this very unaccountable if nota im¬ pertinent epistle; and perhaps it would be folly to comment, in any respect, upon the chimerical, not to say revolutionary, fancies of the writer—whoever he is—fancies so radically at war with the well-con¬ sidered and well-settled opinions of this age. Let us proceed, then, to our legitimate thesis, The Universe.

26

This thesis admits a choice between two modes of discussion:— We may ascend13 or descend. Beginning at our own point of view— at the Earth on which we stand—we may pass to the other planets of our system—thence to the Sun—thence to our system considered collectively—and thence, through other systems, indefinitely out¬ wards; or, commencing on high at some point as definite as we can make it or conceive it, we may come down to the habitation of Man. Usually—that is to say, in ordinary essays on Astronomy—the first of these two modes is, with certain reservation, adopted:—this for the obvious reason that astronomical facts, merely, and principles, being

a. P and, perhaps, somewhat / HW if not b. P ascend / HW ascend [italics on a] [Nelson does not show italics on a in HW.]

• i 6 •

THE UNIVERSE. the object, that object is best fulfilled in stepping from the known because proximate, gradually onward to the point where all certitude becomes lost in the remote. For my present purpose, however,—that of enabling the mind to take in, as if from afar and at one glance, a distinct conception of the individual Universe—it is clear that a de¬ scent to small from great—to the outskirts from the centre (if we could establish a centre)—to the end from the beginning (if we could fancy a beginning) would be the preferable course, but for the difficulty, if not impossibility, of presenting, in this course, to the unastronomical, a picture at all comprehensible in regard to such considerations as are involved in quantity—that is to say, in number, magnitude and distance. 27

Now, distinctness—intelligibility, at all points, is a primary feature in my general design. On important topics it is better to be a good deal prolix than even a very little obscure. But abstruseness is a qual¬ ity appertaining to no subject in itself.3 All are alike, in facility of comprehension, to him who approaches them by properly graduat¬ ed steps. It is merely because a stepping-stone, here and there, is heedlessly left unsupplied in our road to the Differential Calculus, that this latter is not altogether as simple a thing as a sonnet by Mr. Solomon Seesaw.

28

By way of admitting, then, no chance for misapprehension, I think it advisable to proceed as if even the more obvious facts of Astrono¬ my were unknown to the reader. In combining the two modes of discussion to which I have referred, I propose to avail myself of the advantages peculiar to each—and very especially of the iteration in detail which will be unavoidable as a consequence of the plan. Com¬ mencing with a descent, I shall reserve for the return upwards those indispensable considerations of quantity to which allusion has already

29

been made. Let us begin, then, at once, with that merest of words, “Infinity.” This, like “God,” “spirit,” and some other expressions of which the equivalents exist in nearlyb all languages, is by no means the expres¬ sion of an idea—but of an effort at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an impossible conception. Man needed a term by which to point out the direction of this effort—the cloud behind which lay,

a. P per se [italics] / HW in itself [Rom.] b. P in / HW in nearly

.17.

EUREKA. forever invisible, the object of this attempt. A word, in fine, was de¬ manded, by means of which one human being might put himself in relation at once with another human being and with a certain ten¬ dency of the human intellect. Out of this demand arose the word, “Infinity;” which is thus the representative but of the thought of a thought. 30

As regards that infinity now considered—the infinity of space—we often hear it said that “its idea is admitted by the mind—is acquiesced in—is entertained—on account of the greater difficulty which at¬ tends the conception of a limit.” But this is merely one of those phrases by which even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasionally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble lies concealed in the word “difficulty.” “The mind,” we are told, “enter¬ tains the idea of limitless, through the greater difficulty which it finds in entertaining that of limited, space.” Now, were the proposition but fairly put, its absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly, there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion intended, if pre¬ sented according to its intention and without sophistry, would run thus:—“The mind admits the idea of limitless, through the greater impossibility of entertaining that of limited, space.”

31

It must be immediately seen that this is not a question of two state¬ ments between whose respective credibilities—or of two arguments between whose respective validities—the reason is called upon to decide:—it is a matter of two conceptions, directly conflicting, and each avowedly impossible, one of which the intellect is supposed to be capable of entertaining, on account of the greater impossibility of entertaining the other. The choice is rcof made between two difficul¬ ties;—it is merely fancied to be made between two impossibilities. Now of the former, there arc degrees—but of the latter, none:—just as our impertinent letter-writer has already suggested. A task may be more or less difficult; but it is either possible or not possible:—there are no gradations. It mighta be more difficult to overthrow the Andes than an ant-hill; but it canb be no more impossible to annihilate the matter of the one than the matter of the other. A man may jump ten feet with less difficulty than he can jump twenty, but the impossi-

a. P might [italics] / HW might [Rom.] [Poe indicates that he wants italics removed in a number of instances in HW. His proofreading method of doing so is to underscore the word to be changed and write Rom. Rom or Rom: in the margin. We follow HW in such cases.] b. P can [italics] / HW can [Rom. See I31 note a. We follow HW.]

•

1 8

•

THE UNIVERSE. bility of his leaping to the moon is not a whit less than that of his leaping to the dog-star. 32

Since all this is undeniable: since the choice of the mind is to be made between impossibilities of conception: since one impossibility cannot be greater than another: and since, thus, one cannot be pre¬ ferred to another: the philosophers who not only maintain, on the grounds mentioned, man’s idea of infinity but, on account of such supposititious idea, infinity itself—are plainly engaged in demonstrat¬ ing one impossible thing to be possible by showing how it is that some one other thing—is impossible too. This, it will be said, is nonsense; and perhaps it is:—indeed I think it very capital nonsense—but fore¬ go all claim to it as nonsense of mine.

33

The readiest mode, however, of displaying the fallacy of the philo¬ sophical argument on this question, is by simply adverting to a fact respecting it which has been hitherto quite overlooked—the fact that the argument alluded to both proves and disproves its own proposi¬ tion. “The mind is impelled,” say the theologians and others, “to admit a First Cause, by the superior difficulty it experiences in con¬ ceiving cause beyond cause without end.” The quibble, as before, lies in the word “difficulty”—but here what is it employed to sustain? A First Cause. And what is a First Cause? An ultimate termination of causes. And what is an ultimate termination of causes? Finity—the Finite. Thus the one quibble, in two processes, by God knows how many philosophers, is made to support now Finity and now Infinity— could it not be brought to support something besides? As for the quibblers—they, at least, are insupportable. But—to dismiss them:— what they prove in the one case is the identical nothing which they demonstrate in the other.

34

Of course, no one will suppose that I here contend for the abso¬ lute impossibility of that which we attempt to convey in the word “In¬ finity.” My purpose is but to show the folly of endeavoring to prove Infinity itself, or even our conception of it, by any such blundering ratiocination as that which is ordinarily employed.

35

Nevertheless, as an individual, I may be permitted to say that I cannot conceive Infinity, and am convinced that no human being can. A mind not thoroughly self-conscious—not accustomed to the intro¬ spective analysis of its own operations—will, it is true, often deceive itself by supposing that it has entertained the conception of which we speak. In the effort to entertain it, we proceed step beyond step— •ig-

EUREKA. we fancy point still beyond point; and so long as we continue the ef¬ fort, it may be said, in fact, that we are tending to the formation of the idea designed; while the strength of the impression that we ac¬ tually form or have formed it, is in the ratio of the period during which we keep up the mental endeavor. But it is in the act of discon¬ tinuing the endeavor—of fulfilling (as we think) the idea—of put¬ ting the finishing stroke (as we suppose) to the conception—that we overthrow at once the whole fabric of our fancy by resting upon some one ultimate and therefore definite point. This fact, however, we fail to perceive, on account of the absolute coincidence, in time, between the settling down upon the ultimate point and the act of cessation in thinking.—In attempting, on the other hand, to frame the idea of a limited space, we merely converse the processes which involve the impossibility. 36

We believe in a God. We may or may not believe in finite or in infinite space; but our belief, in such cases, is more properly designated as faith, and is a matter quite distinct from that belief proper—from that intellectual belief—which presupposes the mental conception.

37

The fact is, that, upon the enunciation of any one of that class of terms to which “Infinity” belongs—the class representing thoughts of thought—he who has a right to say that he thinks at all, feels himself called on,a not to entertain a conception, but simply to direct his mental vision toward some given point, in the intellectual firmament, where lies a nebula never to be solved.b To solve it, indeed, he makes no effort; for with a rapid instinct he comprehends, not only the impossibility, but, as regards all human purposes, the inessentiality, of its solution. He perceives that die Deity has not designedit to be solved. He sees, at once, that it lies out of the brain of man, and even how, if not exactly why, it lies out of it. There are people, I am aware, who, busying themselves in attempts at the unattainable, acquire very eas¬ ily, by dint of the jargon they emit, among those thinkers-that-theythink with whom darkness and depth are synonymous, a kind of cutde-fish reputation for profundity; but the finest quality of Thought is its self-cognizance; and, with some litde equivocation, it may be said that no fog of the mind can well be greater than that which, extend¬ ing to the very boundaries of the mental domain, shuts out even these boundaries themselves from comprehension.

a. P upon / HW on b. P resolved / HW solved

•20-

THE UNIVERSE. 38

It will now be understood that, in using the phrase, “Infinity of Space,” I make no call upon the reader to entertain the impossible conception of an absolute infinity. I refer simply to the “utmost con¬ ceivable expanse” of space—a shadowy and fluctuating domain, now shrinking, now swelling,3 with the vacillating energies of the imagi¬ nation.

39

Hitherto,b the Universe of Starsc has always been considered coin¬ cident'1 with the Universe proper, as I have defined it in the commence¬ ment of this Discourse. It has been always either directly or indirectly assumed—at least since the dawn of intelligible Astronomy—that, were it possible for us to attain any given point in space, we should still find, on all sides of us, an interminable succession of stars. This was the untenable idea of Pascal when making perhaps the most successful attempt ever made, at periphrasing the conception for which we struggle in the word “Universe.” “It is a sphere,” he says, “of which the centre is everywhere, the circumference, nowhere.” But although this intended definition is, in fact, no definition of the Uni¬ verse of Stars,e we may accept it, with some mental reservation, as a definition (rigorous enough for all practical purposes) of the Uni¬ verse proper—that is to say, of the Universe of space. This latter, then, let us regard as “a sphere of which the centre is everywhere, the circumfer¬ ence nowhere. ” In fact, while we find it impossible to fancy an endf to space, we have no difficulty in picturing to ourselves any one of an infinity of beginnings.s

40

As our starting-point, then, let us adopt the Godhead. Of this God¬ head, in itself, he alone is not imbecile—he alone is not impious who propounds-nothing. “Nous ne connaissons rien, ’’says the Baron de Bielfeld— “Nous ne connaissons rien de la nature ou de Vessence deDieu:— pour savoir ce qu ’il est, il faut etre Dieu meme. ”—“We know absolutely nothing of the nature or essence of God:—in order to comprehend what he is, we should have to be God ourselves.”

41

“We should have to be God ourselves!”—With a phrase so startling as

a. P swelling, in accordance / HW swelling, b. P Hitherto [italics] / HW Hitherto [Rom. See I31, note a. We follow HW.] c. P stars / HW Stars d. P as coincident / NM, HW coincident. [But see I59, note i; Poe seems to have preferred coin¬ cident but to have been inconsistent.] e. P stars [italics] / HW Stars [italics] [We follow HW.] f. P end [italics] / HW end [Rom. See f 31, note a. We follow HW.] g. P beginnings [italics] / HW beginnings [Rom. See 1[ 31, note a. We follow HW.]

•21*

EUREKA. this yet ringing in my ears, I nevertheless venture to demand if this our present ignorance of the Deity is an ignorance to which the soul is everlastingly condemned. 42

By Him, however—now, at least, the Incomprehensible—by Him— assuming him as Spirit—that is to say, as not Matter—a distinction which, for all intelligible purposes, will stand well instead of a defini¬ tion—by Him, then, existing as Spirit, let us content ourselves3 with supposing to have been created, or made out of Nothing, by dint of his Volition—at some point of Space which we will take as a centre— at some period into which we do not pretend to inquire, but at all events immensely remote—by Him, then again, let us suppose to have been created-what? This is a vitally momentous epoch in our considerations. What is it that we are justified—that alone we are justified in supposing to have beenb primarily0 created?

43

We have attained a point where only Intuition can aid us:—but now let me recur to the idea which I have already suggested as that alone which we can properly entertain of intuition. It is but the conviction arising from those inductions or deductions of which the processes are so shad¬ owy as to escape our consciousness, elude our reason, or defy our capacity of expression. With this understanding, I now assert—that an intuition altogether irresistible, although inexpressible, forces me to the con¬ clusion that what God originally created—that that Matter which, by dint of his Volition, he first made from his Spirit, or from Nihility, could have been nothing but Matter in its utmost conceivable state of-what?—of Simplicity.d

44

This will be found the sole absolute assumption of my Discourse. I use the word “assumption” in its ordinary sense; yet I maintain that even this my primary proposition, ise very far indeedf from being re¬ ally a mere assumption. Nothing was ever more certainly—no hu¬ man conclusion was ever, in fact, more regularly—more rigorously deduced:—but, alas! the processes lie out of the human analysis— at all events are beyond the utterance of the human tongue. If, how¬ ever, in the course of this Essay, I succeed in showing that, out of Matter in its extreme of Simplicity, all things might have been con-

a. P ourselves, to-night, / NM, HW ourselves b. P been, / HW been c. P and solely, / HW [deleted] d. P Simplicity ? [italics] / NM, HW Simplicity, [italics] [We follow HW.] e. P is very, / HW is f. P indeed, / HW indeed •22-

THE UNIVERSE. structed, we reach directly the inference that they were thus con¬ structed, through the impossibility of attributing supererogation to Omnipotence^ 45

Let us now endeavor to conceive what Matter must be, when, or if, in its absolute extreme of Simplicity. Here the Reason flies at once to Imparticularity—to a particle—to one particle—a particle of one kind—of one character—of one nature—of one size—of one form— a particle, therefore, “without form and void”—a particle positively a particle at all points—a particle absolutely unique, individual, undivided, and not indivisible only because He who created it, by dint of his Will, can by an infinitely less energetic exercise of the same Will, as a matter of course, divide it.

46

Oneness, then, is all that I predicate of the originally created Mat¬ ter; but I propose to show that this Oneness is a principle abundantly sufficient to account for the constitution, the existing phenomena and the plainly inevitable annihilation of at least the material Universe.

47

The willing into being the primordial Particle,b has completed the act, or more properly the conception, of Creation. We now proceed to the ultimate purpose for which we are to suppose the Particle created—that is to say, the ultimate purpose so far as our consider¬ ations yet enable us to see it—the constitution of the Universe from it, the Particle.

48

This constitution has been effected by forcing the originally and therefore normally One into the abnormal condition of Many. An action of this character implies reaction. A diffusion from Unity, under the conditions, involves a tendency to return into Unity—a tendency ineradicable until satisfied. But on these points I will speak

49

more fully hereafter. The assumption of absolute Unity in the primordial Particle in¬ cludes that of infinite divisibility. *c Let us conceive the Particle, then, to be only not totally exhausted by diffusion into Space. From the

*Show this in another edition. [Poe’s handwritten memo, HW.] a. P tongue. / HW tongue. If, however, in the course of this Essay, I succeed in showing that, out of Matter in its extreme of Simplicity, all things might [italics] have been constructed, we reach directly the inference that they were [italics] thus constructed, through the impossibility of attributing supererogation to Omnip¬ otence. [The Nelson entry omits the comma after “If,” does not capitalize “Essay,” and does not put might and were in italics. Poe himself wrote and then crossed out, after “Simplicity,” die fol¬ lowing: “or out of of an absolute Particle,”] b. P pardcle, / HW Particle, c. P divisibility. / HW divisibility* [Poe added asterisk and note.]

•23-

EUREKA. one Particle, as a centre, let us suppose to be radiated3 spherically— in all directions—to immeasurable but still to definite distances in the previously vacant Spaceb—a certain inexpressibly great yet lim¬ ited number of unimaginably yet not infinitely minute atoms. 50

Now, of these atoms, thus diffused, or onc diffusion, what condi¬ tions are we permitted—not to assume, but to infer, from consider¬ ation as well of their source as of the character of the design appar¬ ent in their diffusion? Unity being their source, and difference from Unity the character of the design manifested in their diffusion, we are warranted in supposing this character to be at least generally61 preserved throughout the design, and to form a portion of the de¬ sign itself:—that is to say, we shall be warranted in conceiving con¬ tinual differences at all points from the uniquity and simplicity of the origin. But, for these reasons, shall we be justified in imagining the atoms heterogeneous, dissimilar, unequal, and inequidistant? More explicitly—are we to consider no two atoms as, at their diffusion, of the same nature, or of the same form, or of the same size?—and, after fulfilment of their diffusion into Space, is absolute inequidistance, each from each, to be understood of all of them? In such arrange¬ ment, under such conditions, we most easily and immediately com¬ prehend the subsequent most feasible carrying out to completion of any such design as that which I have suggested—the design of multiplicity6 out of unity—diversity out of sameness—heterogene¬ ity out of homogeneity—complexity out of simplicity—in a word, the utmost possible multiplicity of relation out of the emphatically irrel¬ ative One. Undoubtedly, therefore, we should be warranted in assum¬ ing all that has been mentioned, but for the reflection, first, that supererogation is not presumable of any Divine Act; and, secondly, that the object supposed in view, appears as feasible when some of the conditions in question are dispensed with, in the beginning, as when all are understood immediately to exist. I mean to say that some are involved in the rest, or so instantaneous a consequence of them as to make the distinction inappreciable. Difference of size, for ex¬ ample, will at once be brought about through the tendency of one

a. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated b. P space / HW Space c. P upon / HW on d. P generally [italics] / HW generally [Rom.] See I31, note a. e. P variety / HW multiplicity

•24-

THE UNIVERSE. atom to a second, in preference to a third, on account of particular inequidistance; which is to be comprehended as particular inequidis¬ tances between centres of quantity, in neighboring atoms of different form— a matter not at all interfering with the generally-equable distribution of the atoms. Difference of kind, too, is easily conceived to be mere¬ ly a result of differences in size and form, taken more or less con¬ jointly:—in fact, since the Unity of the Particle Proper implies abso¬ lute homogeneity, we cannot imagine the atoms, at their diffusion, differing in kind, without imagining, at the same time, a special ex¬ ercise of the Divine Will, at the emission of each atom, for the pur¬ pose of effecting, in each, a change of its essential nature:—anda so fantastic an idea is the less to be indulged, as the object proposed is seen to be thoroughly attainable without such minute and elaborate interposition. We perceive, therefore, onb the whole, that it would be supererogatory, and consequently unphilosophical, to predicate of the atoms, in view of their purposes, any thing more than differ¬ ence of form at their dispersion, with particular inequidistance after it—all other differences arising at once out of these, in the very first processes of mass-constitution:—We thus establish the Universe on a purely geometrical basis. Of course, it is by no means necessary to assume absolute difference, even of form, among all the atoms radiatedc—any more than absolute particular inequidistance of each from each. We are required to conceive merely that no neighboring atoms are of similar form—no atoms which can ever approximate, until their inevitable reunition at the end. 51

Although the immediate and perpetual tendency of the disunited atoms to return into their normal Unity, is implied, as I have said, in their abnormal diffusion; still it is clear that this tendency will be without consequence—a tendency and no more—until the diffusive energy, in ceasing to be exerted, shall leave it, the tendency, free to seek its satisfaction. The Divine Act, however, being considered as determinate, and discontinued on fulfilment of the diffusion, we understand, at once, a reaction—in other words, a satisfiable tenden¬ cy of the disunited atoms to return into One.

52

But the diffusive energy being withdrawn, and the reaction hav¬ ing commenced in furtherance of the ultimate design—that of the

a. P nature:—so /HW nature:—and so b. P upon / HW on c. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated

•

25-

EUREKA. utmost possible Relation—this design is now in danger of being frus¬ trated, in detail, by reason of that very tendency to return which is to effect its accomplishment in general. Multiplicity is the object; but there is nothing to prevent proximate atoms, from lapsing at once, through the now satisfiable tendency—before the fulfilment of any ends proposed in multiplicity—into absolute oneness among them¬ selves:—there is nothing to impede the aggregation of various unique masses, at various points of space:—in other words, nothing to in¬ terfere with the accumulation of various masses, each absolutely One. 53

For the effectual3 completion of the general design, we thus see the necessity for a repulsion of limited capacity—a separative something which, on withdrawal of the diffusive Volition, shall at the same time allow the approach, and forbid the junction, of the atoms; suffering them infinitely to approximate, while denying them positive contact; in a word, having the power—up to a certain epoch—of preventing their coalition, but no ability to interfere with their coalescence in any respect or degree. The repulsion, already considered as so peculiarly limited in other regards, must be understood, let me repeat, as having power to prevent absolute coalition, only up to a certain epoch. Unless we are to conceive that the appetite for Unity among the atoms is doomed to be satisfied never;—unless we are to conceive that what had a begin¬ ning is to have no end—a conception which cannot really be enter¬ tained, however much we may talk or dream of entertaining it—we are forced to conclude that the repulsive influence imagined, will, finally—under pressure of the Uni-tendencyb collectively applied, but never and in no degree until, on fulfilment of the Divine purposes, such collective application shall be naturally made—yield to a force which, at that ultimate epoch, shall be the superior force precisely to the extent required, and thus permit the universal subsidence into the inevitable, because original and therefore normal, One.c The condi¬ tions here to be reconciled are difficult indeed:—we cannot even comprehend the possibility of their conciliation;—nevertheless, the apparent impossibility is brilliantly suggestive.

54

That the repulsive something actually exists, we see. Man neither

a. P effectual and thorough / HW effectual b. P Unltendency [italics] / NM, HW Uni-tendency [Rom.; See H31, note a. Hyphen at end of line. We retain it because Poe often hyphenated such words: see Pollin, Ward Index.] c. P One.— [italics] / HW One. [italics] [Both P and HW are in italics; Poe deleted the dash. Nelson does not show italics on P. We follow HW'.]

•26-

THE UNIVERSE. employs, nor knows, a force sufficient to bring two atoms into con¬ tact. This is but the well-established proposition of the impenetra¬ bility of matter. All Experiment proves—all Philosophy admits it. The design of the repulsion—the necessity for its existence—I have en¬ deavored to show; but from all attempt at investigating its nature have religiously abstained; this on account of an intuitive conviction that the principle at issue is strictly spiritual—lies in a recess impervious to our present understanding—lies involved in a consideration of what now—in our human state—is not to be considered—in a con¬ sideration of Spirit in itself. I feel, in a word, that here the God has interposed, and here only, because here and here only the knot demanded the interposition of the God. 55

In fact, while the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into Unity, will be recognized, at once, as the principle of the Newtonian Gravity, what I have spoken of as a repulsive influence prescribing limits to the (immediate) satisfaction of the tendency, will be under¬ stood as that which we have been in the practice of designating now as heat, now as magnetism, now as electricity; displaying our ignorance of its awful character in the vacillation of the phraseology with which we endeavor to circumscribe it.

56

Calling it, merely for the moment, electricity, we know that all experimental analysis of electricity has given, as an ultimate result, the principle, or seeming principle, heterogeneity. Only where things differ is electricity apparent; and it is presumable that they never dif¬ fer where it is not developed at least, if not apparent. Now, this re¬ sult is in the fullest keeping with that which I have reached unempirically. The design of the repulsive influence I have suggested3 to be that of preventing immediate Unity among the diffused atoms; and these atoms are represented as different each from each. Difference is their character—their essentiality—-just as no-difference was the essentiality of their source. When we say, then, that an attempt to bring any two of these atoms together would induce an effort, on the part of the repulsive influence, to prevent the contact, we may as well use the stricdy convertible sentence that an attempt to bring together any two differences will result in a development of electricity. All existing bodies, of course, are composed of these atoms in proximate contact, and are therefore to be considered as mere assemblages of

a. P maintained / HW suggested

•27-

EUREKA. more or fewer differences; and the resistance made by the repulsive spirit, on bringing together any two such assemblages, would be in the ratio of the two sums of the differences in each:—an expression which, when reduced, is equivalent to this:—The amount of electricity developed on the approximation of two bodies, is proportional with? the dif¬ ference between the respective sums of the atoms of which the bodies are com¬ posed. That no two bodies are absolutely alike, is a simple corollary from all that has been here said. Electricity, therefore, existing always, is developed whenever any bodies, but manifested only when bodies of appreciable difference, are brought into approximation. 57

To electricity—so, for the present, continuing to call it—we may not be wrong in referring the various physical appearances of light, heat and magnetism; but far less shall we be liable to err in attribut¬ ing to this strictly spiritual principle the more important phaenomena of vitality, consciousness and Thought. On this topic, however, I need pause here merely to suggest that these phaenomena, whether observed generally or in detail, seem to proceed at least in the ratio of the heterogeneous.

58

Discarding now the two equivocal terms, “gravitation” and “elec¬ tricity,” let us adopt the more definite expressions, “Attraction ”b and “Repulsion. ”c The former is the body; the latter the soul: the one is the material; the other the spiritual, principle of the Universe. No other principles exist. All phaenomena are referable to one, or to the other, or to both combined. So rigorously is this the case—so thor¬ oughly demonstrable is it that Attraction01 and Repulsione are the sole properties through which we perceive the Universe—in other words, by which Matter is manifested to Mind—that, for all mere¬ ly argumentative purposes, we are fully justified in assuming that Matterf exists only as Attractions and Repulsion11—that Attraction1 and Repulsion! are [MJatter:—there being no conceivable case in

a. P to / NM, HW with b. P “attraction” [italics] / HW “Attraction” [italics] [We follow HW.] c. P “repulsion” [italics] / HW “Repulsion” [italics] [We follow HW.] d. P attraction / HW Attraction e. P repulsion / HW Repulsion f. P matter / HW Matter g. P attraction / HW Attraction h. P repulsion / HW Repulsion i. P attraction / HW Attraction j. P repulsion / HW Repulsion

•28-

THE UNIVERSE. which we may not employ the term “Matter”a and the terms “Attrac¬ tion”13 and “Repulsion,”c taken together, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions in Logic. 59

I said, just now, that what I have described as the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into their original Unity,d would be under¬ stood as the principle of the Newtonian law of Gravity:6 and, in fact, there can be litde difficulty in such an understanding, if we look at the Newtonian Gravityf in a merely general view, as a force impelling Matter^ to seek Matter;11 that is to say, when we pay no attention to the known modus operandi of the Newtonian force. The general coinciden¬ ce1 satisfies us; but, on> looking closely, we see, in detail, much that appears incoincident,k and much in regard to which no coincidence,1 at least, is established. For example; the Newtonian Gravity,111 when we think of it in certain moods, does not seem to be a tendency to oneness at all, but rather a tendency of all bodies in all directions—a phrase apparendy expressive of a tendency to diffusion. Here, then, is an zncoincidence.11 Again; when we reflect on the mathematical law gov¬ erning the Newtonian tendency, we see clearly that no coincidence0 has been made good, in respect of the modus operandi, at least, between Gravity13 as known to exist and that seemingly simple and direct ten¬ dency which I have assumed.

60

In fact, I have attained a point at which it will be advisable to strengthen my position by reversing my processes. So far, we have gone on a priori, from an abstract consideration of Simplicity, as that quality most likely to have characterized the original action of God.

a. P matter / HW Matter b. P attraction / HW Attraction c. P repulsion / HW Repulsion d. P unity / HW Unity e. P gravity / HW Gravity f. P gravity / HW Gravity g. P matter / HW Matter h. P matter / HW Matter i. P coincidence / HW coincidence j. P upon / HW on k. P incoincident [in italicized] / HW incoincident [in italicized] [We follow HW.] l. P coincidence / HW coincidence m. P gravity / HW Gravity n. P mcoincidence [in italicized] / HW incoincidence [in italicized] [We follow HW.] o. P coincidence / HW coincidence p. P gravitation / HW Gravity

•29-

EUREKA. Let us now see whether the established facts of the Newtonian Grav¬ itation may not afford us, a posteriori, some legitimate inductions. 61

What does the Newtonian law declare?—That all bodies attract each other with forces proportional with3 their quantities of matter and inversely proportional withb the squares of their distances. Purposely, I have here given, in the first place, the vulgar version of the law; and I confess that in this, as in most other vulgar versions of great truths, we find little of a suggestive character. Let us now adopt a more philo¬ sophical phraseology:—Every atom, of every body, attracts every other atom, both of its own and of every other body, with a force which varies inversely as the squares of the distances between the attracting and attracted atom.—Here, indeed, a flood of suggestion bursts upon the mind.

62

But let us see distinctly what it was that Newton proved—according to the grossly irrational definitions of /too/"prescribed by the metaphys¬ ical schools. He was forced to content himself with showing how thor¬ oughly the motions of an imaginary Universe, composed of attracting and attracted atoms obedient to the law he announced, coincide with those of the actually existing Universe so far as it comes under our observation. This was the amount of his demonstration—that is to say, this was the amount of it, according to the conventional cant of the “philosophies.” His successorsc added proof multiplied by proof—such proof as a sound intellect admits—but the demonstration of the law it¬ self, persist the metaphysicians, had not been strengthened in any degree. “Ocular, physical proof,” however, of Attraction^ here upon Earth, in accordance with the Newtonian theory, was, at length, much to the satisfaction of some intellectual grovellers, afforded. This proof arose collaterally and incidentally (as nearly all important truths have arisen) out of an attempt to ascertain the mean density of the Earth. In the famous Maskelyne, Cavendish and Bailly experiments for this purpose, the attraction of the mass of a mountain*e was seen, felt, measured, and found to be mathematically consistent with the theoryf of the British astronomer.

63

But in spite of this confirmation of that which needed none—in *Schehallien, in Wales. [New footnote inscribed in pencil, HW.]

a. P to / NM, HW with b. P to / NM, HW with c. P successes / O, W, NM successor [Nelson rejects this reading.] / HW successors d. P attraction / HW Attraction e. P mountain. / HW mountain* [Poe added asterisk and note.] f. P immortal theory / HW theory

• 3 o •

THE UNIVERSE. spite of the so-called corroboration of the “theory” by the so-called “ocular and physical proof’—in spite of the character of this corrob¬ oration—the ideas which even really philosophical men cannot help imbibing of Gravity3—and, especially, the ideas of it which ordinary men get and contentedly maintain, are seen to have been derived, for the most part, from a consideration of the principle as they find it developed—merely in the planet orf which they stand. 64

Now, to what does so partial a consideration tend—to what species of error does it give rise? On the Earth we see and feel, only that Grav¬ ity^ impels all bodies towards the centre of the Earth. No man in the common walks of life could be made to see or to feel anything else— could be made to perceive that anything, anywhere, has a perpetual, gravitating tendency in other direction than to the centre of the Earth; yet (with an exception hereafter to be specified) it is a fact that every earthly thing (not to speak now of every heavenly thing) has a tendency not only to the Earth’s centre but in every conceivable direction be¬ sides.

65

Now, although the philosophic cannot be said to err with the vul¬ gar in this matter, they nevertheless permit themselves to be in¬ fluenced, without knowing it, by the sentiment of the vulgar idea. “Al¬ though the Pagan fables are not believed,” says Bryant, in his very erudite “Mythology,” “yet we forget ourselves continually and make inferences from them as from existing realities.” I mean to assert that the merely sensitive perception of Gravity*1 as we experience it on Earth, beguiles mankind into the fancy of concentralization or especiality re¬ specting it—has been continually biasing towards this fancy even the mightiest intellects—perpetually, although imperceptibly, leading them away from the real characteristics of the principle; thus pre¬ venting them, up to this date, from ever getting a glimpse of that vital truth which lies in a diametrically opposite direction—behind the principle’s essential characteristics—those, not of concentraliza¬ tion or especiality—but of universality and diffusion. This “vital truth” is Unity as the source of the phsenomenon.

66

Let me now repeat the definition of Gravity:6—Every atom, of every

a. P gravity / HW Gravity b. P upon / HW on [italics] c. P gravity / HW Gravity d. P gravity / HW Gravity e. P gravity / HW Gravity

• 3 i •

EUREKA. body, attracts every other atom, both of its own and of every other body, with a force which varies inversely as the squares of the distances of the attracting and attracted atom. 67

Here let the reader pause with me, for a moment, in contemplation of the miraculous—of the ineffable—of the altogether unimaginable complexity of relation involved in the fact that each atom attracts every other atom—involved merely in this fact of the Attraction,a without ref¬ erence to the law or mode in which the Attraction13 is manifested— involved merely in the fact that each atom attracts every other atom at all, in a wilderness of atoms so numerous that those which go to the composition of a cannon-ball, exceed, probably, in mere point of number, all the stars which go to the constitution of the Universe.

68

Had we discovered, simply, that each atom tendsc to some one fa¬ vorite point, a favorite with alld—to some especially attractive atom— we should still have fallen upon a discovery which, in itself, would have sufficed to overwhelm the mind:—but what is it that we are actually called one to comprehend? That each atom attracts—sympathizes with the most delicate movements of every other atom, and with each and with all at the same time, and forever, and according to a determinate law of which the complexity, even considered by itself solely, is utterly beyond the grasp of the imagination/ If I propose to ascertain the influence of one mote in a sunbeam on® its neighboring mote, I can¬ not accomplish my purpose without first counting and weighing all the atoms in the Universe and defining the precise positions of all at one particular moment.*1 If I venture to displace, by even the billionth of a part of an inch, the microscopical speck of dust which lies now on1 the point of my finger, what is the character of that act upon which I have adventured? I have done a deed which shakes the Moon in her path, which causes the Sun to be no longer the Sun, and which alters forever the destiny of the multitudinous myriads of stars that roll and glow in the majestic presence of their Creator.

a. P attraction / HW Attraction b. P attraction / HW Attraction c. P tended / HW tends d. P favorite point—to some especially attractive atom / HW point, a favorite with all e. P upon / HW on f. P imagination of man / HW imagination

g. P upon / HW on h. P moment / NM, HW moment i. P upon / HW on

• 3 2 •

THE UNIVERSE. 69

These ideas—conceptions such as these—un though dike thoughts— soul-reveries rather than conclusions or even considerations of the intellect:—ideas, I repeat, such as these, are such as we can alone hope profitably to entertain in any effort at grasping the great prin¬ ciple, Attraction.

70

But now,—with such ideas—with such a vision of the marvellous complexity of Attraction fairly in his mind—let any person compe¬ tent of thought on such topics as these, set himself to the task of imagining a principle for the phenomena observed—a condition from which they sprang.

71

Does not so evident a brotherhood among the atoms point to a common parentage? Does not a sympathy so omniprevalent, so in¬ eradicable, and so thoroughly irrespective, suggest a common pater¬ nity as its source? Does not one extreme impel the reason to the oth¬ er? Does not the infinitude of division refer to the utterness of individuality? Does not the entireness of the complex hint at the perfection of the simple? It is not that the atoms, as we see them, are divided or that they are complex in their relations—but that they are inconceivably divided and unutterably complex:—it is the extreme¬ ness of the conditions to which I now allude, rather than to the con¬ ditions themselves. In a word, is it not because the atoms were, at some remote epoch of time, even more than together—is it not because originally, and therefore normally, they were One—that now, in all circumstances—at all points—in all directions—by all modes of approach—in all relations and through all conditions—they strug¬ gle back to this absolutely, this irrelatively, this unconditionally One?*

72

Some person may here demand:—“Why—since it is to the One that the atoms struggle back—do we not find and define Attraction as merely ‘ab general tendency to a centre?’—why, in especial, do not your atoms—the atoms which you describe as having been radiatedc from a centre—proceed at once, rectilinearly, back to the central point of their origin?”

73

I reply that they do; as will be distincdy shown; but that the cause of their so doing is quite irrespective of the centre as such. They all tend rectilinearly towards a centre, because of the sphericity11 with which

a. P one? [italics] / HW One? [italics] [We follow HW.] b. P ‘a merely general / HW as merely ‘a general c. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated d. P sphereicity / NM, HW sphericity

•33-

EUREKA. they have been radiated3 into space. Each atom, forming one of a generally uniform globe of atoms, finds more atoms in the direction of the centre, of course, than in any other, and in that direction, there¬ fore, is impelled—but is not thus impelled because the centre is the point of its origin. It is not to any point that the atoms are allied. It is not any locality, either in the concrete or in the abstract, to which I suppose them bound. Nothing like locationwas conceived as their origin. Their source lies in the principle, Unity. This is their lost parent. This they seek always—immediately—in all directions—wherever it is even par¬ tially to be found; thus appeasing, in some measure, the ineradicable tendency, while on the way to its absolute satisfaction in the end. It follows from all this, that any principle which shall be adequate to account for the law, or modus operandi, of the attractive force in gen¬ eral, will account for this law in particular:—that is to say, any princi¬ ple which will show why the atoms should tend to their general centre of radiatiorf with forces inversely proportional withc the squares of the distances, will be admitted as satisfactorily accounting, at the same time, for the tendency, according to the same law, of these atoms each to each:—for the tendency to the centre is merely the tendency each to each, and not any tendency to a centre as such.—Thus it will be seen, also, that the establishment of my propositions would involve no ne¬ cessity of modification in the terms of the Newtonian definition of Gravity, which declares that each atom attracts each other atom and so forth, and declares this merely; but (always under the supposition that what I propose be, in the end, admitted) it seems clear that some error might occasionally be avoided, in the future processes of Science, were a more ample phraseology adopted:—for instance:—“Each atom tends to every other atom &c. with a force &c.: the general result being a tendency of all, with a similar force, to a general centre. ” 74

The reversal of our processes has thus brought us to an identical result; but, while in the one process Intuitiond was the starting-point, in the other it was the goal. In commencing the former journey I could only say that, with an irresistible In tuition,e I /^Simplicity to have been the characteristic of the original action of God:—in ending the latter

a. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated b. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] c. P to / NM, HW with d. P intuition [italics] / HW Intuition [italics] [We follow HW.] e. P intuition / HW Intuition

•34'

THE UNIVERSE. I can only declare that, with an irresistible Intuition,31 perceive Unity to have been the source of the observed phaenomena of the Newto¬ nian Gravity.15 Thus, according to the schools, I prove nothing. So be it:—I design but to suggest—and to convince through the suggestion. I am proudly aware that there exist many of the most profound and cautiously discriminative intellects0 which cannot help being abundant¬ ly content with my—suggestions. To these intellects—as to my own— there is no mathematical demonstration which could bring the least additional true proof of the great Truth which I have advanced—the truth of Original Unity as the source—as the principle of the Universal Phcenomena. For my part, I am not so sure that I speak and see—I am not so sure that my heart beats and that my soul lives:—of the rising of to-morrow’s sun—a probability that as yet lies in the Future—I do not pretend to be one thousandth part as sure—as I am of the ir¬ retrievably by-gone Fact that All Things and All Thoughts of Things, with all their ineffable Multiplicity of Relation, sprang at once into being from the primordial and irrelative One. 75

Referring to the Newtonian Gravity, Dr. Nichol, the eloquent au¬ thor of “The Architecture of the Heavens,” says:—“In truth we have no reason to suppose this great Law, as now revealed, to be the ulti¬ mate or simplest, and therefore the universal and all-comprehensive, form of a great Ordinance. The mode in which its intensity dimin¬ ishes with the element of distance, has not the aspect of an ultimate principle; which always assumes the simplicity and self-evidence of those axioms which constitute the basis of Geometry.”

76

Now, it is quite true that “ultimate principles,” in the common un¬ derstanding of the words, always assume the simplicity of geometri¬ cal axioms—(as for “self-evidence,” there is no such thing)—but these principles are clearly not “ultimate;” in other terms what we are in the habit of calling principles are no principles, properly speaking—since there can be but one principle, the Volition of God. We have no right to assume, then, from what we observe in rules that we choose fool¬ ishly to name “principles,” anything at all in respect to the character¬ istics of a principle proper. The “ultimate principles” of which Dr. Nichol speaks as having geometrical simplicity, may and do have this geometrical turn, as being part and parcel of a vast geometrical sys-

a. P intuition / HW Intuition b. P gravitation / HW Gravity c. P discriminative human intellects / HW discriminative intellects

•35-

EUREKA. tem, and thus a system of simplicity itself—in which, nevertheless, the truly ultimate principle is, as we know, the consummation of the complex—that is to say, of the unintelligible—for is it not the Spir¬ itual Capacity of God? 77

I quoted Dr. Nichol’s remark, however, not so much to question its philosophy, as by way of calling attention to the fact that, while all men have admitted some principle as existing behind the Law of Gravity, no attempt has been yet made to point out what this prin¬ ciple in particular is:—if we except, perhaps, occasional fantastic efforts at referring it to Magnetism, or Mesmerism, or Swedenborgianism, or Transcendentalism, or some other equally delicious ism of the same species, and invariably patronized by one and the same species of people. The great mind of Newton, while boldly grasp¬ ing the Law itself, shrank from the principle of the Law. The more fluent and comprehensive at least, if not the more patient and profound, sagacity of Laplace, had not the courage to attack it. But hesitation on the part of these two astronomers it is, perhaps, not so very difficult to understand. They, as well as all the first class of mathematicians, were mathematicians solely:—their intellect, at least, had a firmly-pronounced mathematico-physical tone. What lay not distinctly within the domain of Physics, or of Mathematics, seemed to them either Non-Entity or Shadow. Nevertheless, we may well wonder that Leibnitz, who was a marked exception to the gen¬ eral rule in these respects, and whose mental temperament was a singular admixture of the mathematical with the physico-metaphysical, did not at once investigate and establish the point at issue. Either Newton or Laplace, seeking a principle and discovering none physical, would have rested contentedly in the conclusion that there was absolutely none; but it is almost impossible to fancy, of Leibnitz, that, having exhausted in his search the physical domin¬ ions, he would not have stepped at once, boldly and hopefully, amid his old familiar haunts in the kingdom of Metaphysics. Here, indeed, it is clear that he must have adventured in search of the treasure:— that he did not find it after all, was, perhaps, because his fairy guide, Imagination, was not sufficiently well-grown, or well-educated, to direct him aright.

78

I observed, just now, that, in fact, there had been certain vague attempts at referring Gravity to some very uncertain isms. These at¬ tempts, however, although considered bold and justly so considered,

•36-

THE UNIVERSE. looked no farther than to the generality—the merest generality— of the Newtonian Law. Its modus operandi has never, to my knowledge, been approached in the way of an effort at explanation. It is, there¬ fore, with no unwarranted fear of being taken for a madman at the outset, and before I can bring my propositions fairly to the eye of those who alone are competent to decide ona them, that I here de¬ clare the modus operandi of the Law of Gravity to be an exceedingly simple and perfectly explicable thing—that is to say, when we make our advances towards it in just gradations and in the true direction— when we regard it from the proper point of view. 79

Whether we reach the idea of absolute Unity as the source of All Things, from a consideration of Simplicity as the most probable characteristic of the original action of God;—whether we arrive at it from an inspection of the universality of relation in the gravitat¬ ing phaenomena;—or whether we attain it as a result of the mutual corroboration afforded by both processes;—still, the idea itself, if entertained at all, is entertained in inseparable connection with another idea—that of the condition of the Universe of Starsb as we now perceive it—that is to say, a condition of immeasurable diffusion through space. Now a connection between these two ideas—unity and diffusion—cannot be established unless through the entertain¬ ment of a third idea—that of radiation.c Absolute Unity being taken as a centre, then the existing Universe of Starsd is the result of radiatiorf from that centre.

80

Now, the laws of radiationf are known. They are part and parcel of the sphere. They belong to the class of indisputable geometrical properties.s We say of them, “they are true—they are evident.” To demand why they are true, would be to demand why the axioms are true upon which their demonstration is based. Nothing11 is demon¬ strable, strictly speaking; but if1 anything be, then the properties— the laws in question are demonstrated.

a. P upon / HW on b. P stars / HW Stars c. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] d. P stars / HW Stars e. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] f. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation g. P indisputable geometrical properties [italics] / HW indisputable geometrical properties [Rom. See I31, note a.] h. P Nothing [italics] / HW Nothing [Rom. See I31, note a. We follow HW.] i. P ?/[italics] / HW t/[Rom. See I31, note a. We follow HW.]

37

•

-

EUREKA. 81

But these laws—what do they declare? Radiation3—how—by what steps does it proceed outwardly from a centre?

82

From a luminous centre, Light issues by radiation;b and the quan¬ tities of light received upon any given plane, supposed to be shift¬ ing its position so as to be now nearer the centre and now farther from it, will be diminished in the same proportion as the squares of the distances of the plane from the luminous body, are increased; and will be increased in the same proportion as these squares are diminished.

83

The expression of the law may be thus generalized:—the number of light-particles (or, if the phrase be preferred, the number of lightimpressions) received upon the shifting plane, will be inversely pro¬ portional with the squares of the distances of the plane. Generaliz¬ ing yet again, we may say that the diffusion—the scattering—the radiation,0 in a word—is directly proportional with the squares of the distances.

84

For example: at the distance B, from the luminous centre A, a certain number of particles are so diffused as to occupy the surface B. Then at double the distance—that is to say at C—they will be so

much farther diffused as to occupy four such surfaces:—at treble the distance, or at D, they will be so much farther separated as to occu¬ py nine such surfaces:—while, at quadruple the distance, or at E, they will have become so scattered as to spread themselves over sixteen such surfaces—and so on forever. 85 In saying, generally, that the radiationd proceeds in direct propor¬ tion with the squares of the distances, we use the term radiation15 to a. P Irradiation / NM, HW Radiation b. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation c. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation d. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation e. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

38

•

-

THE UNIVERSE. express the degree of the diffusion as we proceed outwardly from the centre. Conversing the idea, and employing the word “concentralization” to express the degree of the drawing together as we come back toward the centre from an outward position, we may say that concentralization proceeds inversely as the squares of the distances. In other words, we have reached the conclusion that, on the hypothe¬ sis that matter was originally radiated3 from a centre and is now re¬ turning to it, the concentralization, in the return, proceeds exactly as we know the force of gravitation to proceed. 86

Now here, if we could be permitted to assume that concentraliza¬ tion exactly represents13 the force of the tendency to the centre—that the one isc exactly proportional withd the other, and that the two proceed6 together—we should have shown all that is required. The sole difficulty existing, then, is to establish a direct proportion between “concentral¬ ization” and the force of concentralization; and this is done, of course, if we establish such proportion between “radiation”f and the force of radiation. §

87

A very slight inspection of the Heavens assures us that the stars have a certain general uniformity, equability, or equidistance, of dis¬ tribution through that region of space in which, collectively, and in a roughly globular form, they are situated:—this species of very gen¬ eral, rather than absolute, equability, being in full keeping with my deduction of inequidistance, within certain limits, among the orig¬ inally diffused atoms, as a corollary from the designh of infinite com¬ plexity of relation out of irrelation. I started, it will be remembered, with the idea of a generally uniform but particularly wnuniform dis¬ tribution of the atoms;—an idea, I repeat, which an inspection of the stars, as they exist, confirms.

88

But even in the merely general equability of distribution, as re¬ gards the atoms, there appears a difficulty which, no doubt, has al¬ ready suggested itself to those among my readers who have borne in mind that I suppose this equability of distribution effected through

a. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated b. P represented / HW represents c. P was / HW is d. P to / NM, HW with e. P proceeded / HW proceed f. P “irradiation” / NM, HW “radiation ” g. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation h. P from the evident design / HW from the design

39

•

-

EUREKA. radiation* from a centre. The very first glance at the idea, radiation,13 forces us to the entertainment of the hitherto unseparated and seem¬ ingly inseparable idea of agglomeration about a centre, with disper¬ sion as we recede from it—the idea, in a word, of mequability of distribution in respect to the matter radiated.c 89

Now, I have elsewhere* observed that it is byjust such difficulties as the one now in question—such peculiarities—such roughnessesd— such protuberances above the plane of the ordinary—that Reason feels her way, if at all, in her search for the True. By the difficulty— the “peculiarity”—now presented, I leap at once to the secret—a se¬ cret which I might never have attained but tor the peculiarity and the inferences which, in its mere character of peculiarity, it affords me.

90

The process of thought, at this point, may be thus roughly sketched:—I say to myself—“Unity, as I have explained it, is a truth— I feel it. Diffusion is a truth—I see it. Radiation,e by which alone these two truths are reconciled, is a consequent truth—I perceive it. Equability of diffusion, first deduced a priori and then corrobo¬ rated by the inspection of phaenomena, is also a truth—I fully ad¬ mit it. So far all is clear around me:—there are no clouds behind which the secret—the great secret of the gravitating modus operandi—can possibly lie hidden;—but this secret lies hereabouts, most assuredly; and were there but a cloud in view, I should be driven to suspicion of that cloud.” And now, just as I say this, there actually comes a cloud into view. This cloud is the seeming impossibility of reconciling my truth, radiation,i with my truth, equability of diffusion. I say now:—“Behind this seeming impossibility is to be found what I desire.” I do not say “real impossibility;” for invincible faith in my truths assures me that it is a mere difficulty after all—but I go on to say, with unflinching confidence, that, when this difficulty shall be solved, we shall find, wrapped up in the process of solution, the key to the secret at which we aim. Moreover—I feel that we shall discover but one possible solution of the difficulty; this for the reason that, *

“Murders in the Rue Morgue ”—p. 133.

a. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] b. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation c. P irradiated / HW radiated d. P —such roughnesses—such peculiarities— / HW —such peculiarities—such roughnesses— e. P Irradiation / NM, HW Radiation f. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.]

40

•

-

THE UNIVERSE. were there two, one would be supererogatory—would be fruitless— would be empty—would contain no key—since no duplicate key can be needed to any secret of Nature. 91

And now, let us see:—Our usual notions of radiation3—in fact all our distinct notions of it—are caught merely from the process as we see it exemplified in Light. Here there is a continuous outpouring of ray-streams, and with a force which we have at least no right to suppose varies at all. Now, in any such radiation13 as this—continuous and of unvary¬ ing force—the regions nearer the centre must inevitably be always more crowded with the radiatedc matter than the regions more remote. But I have assumed nod such radiatione as this/1 assumed no continuous radiation;® and for the simple reason that such an assumption would have involved, first, the necessity of entertaining a conception which I have shown no man can entertain, and which (as I will more fully explain hereafter) all observation of the firmament refutes—the con¬ ception of the absolute infinity of the Universe of Stars*1—and would have involved, secondly, the impossibility of understanding a reac¬ tion—that is, gravitation—as existing now—since, while an act is con¬ tinued, no reaction, of course, can take place. My assumption, then— or1 rather my inevitable deduction from just premises—was that of a determinate radiation!—one finally discontinued.

92

Let me now describe the sole possible mode in which it is conceiv¬ able that matter could have been diffused through space, so as to fulfil the conditions at once of radiationk and of generally equable distribution.

93

For convenience of illustration, let us imagine, in the first place, a hollow sphere of glass, or of anything else, occupying the space throughout which the universal matter is to be thus equably1 dif-

a. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation b. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation c. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated d. P no [italics] / HW no [Rom. See I31, note a.] e. P irradiation [italics] / HW radiation [Rom. See

f 31,

note a.]

f. P as this, [italics] / HW as this. [Rom. See K31, note a. We follow HW.] g. P Irradiation / NM, HW radiation h. P stars / HW Stars i. P then, / HW then— j. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation k. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

l. P equally / NM, HW equably

41

•

*

EUREKA. fused, by means of radiation,3 from the absolute, irrelative, uncon¬ ditional Particle,b placed in the centre of the sphere. 94

Now, a certain exertion of the diffusive power (presumed to be the Divine Volition)—in other words, a certain force—whose measure is the quantity of matter—that is to say, the number of atoms—emitted; emits, by radiation,c this certain number of atoms; forcing them in all directions outwardly from the centre—their proximity to each other diminishing as they proceed—until, finally, they are distribut¬ ed, loosely, over the interior surface of the sphere.

95

When these atoms have attained this position, or while proceed¬ ing to attain it, a second and inferior exercise of the same force— or a second and inferior force of the same character—emits, in the same manner—that is to say, by radiationd as before—a second stra¬ tum of atoms which proceeds to deposit itself upon the first; the number of atoms, in this case as in the former, being of course the measure of the force which emitted them; in other words the force being precisely adapted to the purpose it effects—the force and the number of atoms sent out by the force, being directly proportional.

96

When this second stratum has reached its destined position—or while approaching it—a third still inferior exertion of the force, or a third inferior force of a similar character—the number of atoms emitted being in all cases the measure of the force—proceeds to deposit a third stratum upon the second:—and so on, until these concentric strata, growing gradually less and less, come down at length to the central point; and the diffusive matter, simultaneously with the diffusive force, is exhausted. [*]e

97

We have now the sphere filled, through means of radiation/with atoms equably diffused. The two necessary conditions—those of radiation^ and of equable diffusion—are satisfied; and by the sole process in which the possibility of their simultaneous satisfaction is

* [*] Here describe the whole process as one instantaneous flash. [Poe’s handwr itten memorandum, HW. We proride asterisks to indicate what Poe’s inscription refers to. He drew a line from the end of H96 to the memorandum at the bottom of the page.] a. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation b. P particle / HW Particle c. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation d. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation e. P exhausted. / HW exhausted* [Poe added the note; we supply the asterisk.] f. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation g. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

42

•

-

THE UNIVERSE. conceivable. For this reason, I confidently expect to find, lurking in the present condition of the atoms as distributed throughout the sphere, the secret of which I am in search—the all-important prin¬ ciple of the modus operandi of the Newtonian law. Let us examine, then, the actual condition of the atoms. 98

They lie in a series of concentric strata. They are equably diffused throughout the sphered

99

The atoms being equably distributed, the greater the superficial extent of any of these concentric strata, or spheres, the more atoms will lie upon it. In other words, the number of atoms lying upon the surface of any one of the concentric spheres, is directly proportion¬ al with the extent of that surface.

100

But, in any series of concentric spheres, the surfaces are directly proportional with the squares of the distances from the centre!

101

Therefore the number of atoms in any stratum is directly propor¬ tional with the square of that stratum’s distance from the centre.

102

But the number of atoms in any stratum is the measure of the force which emitted that stratum—that is to say, is directly proportional with the force.

103

Therefore the force which radiated*3 any stratum is directly propor¬ tional with the square of that stratum’s distance from the centre:— or, generally,

104

The force of the radiationc has been directly proportional with the squares of the distances:—or, particularly,

105

The force by which any individual atom was sent to its position in the sphere, was directly proportional with the square of that atom’s distance, while in that position, from the centre of the sphered

106

Now, Reaction, as far as we know anything of it, is Action con¬ versed. The general principle of Gravity being, in the first place, un¬ derstood as the reaction of an act—as the expression of a desire on

* Succinctly—The surfaces of spheres are as the squares of their radii. a. P sphere. They have been irradiated into these states. / NM radiated [The rest of the sen¬ tence is unchanged.] / HW sphere. [Sentence is omitted.] b. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated c. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] d. P distances, [italics] / HW distances [italics]:—or, particularly, The force by which any individual atom was sent to its position in the sphere, was directly proportional with the square of that atom’s distance, while in that position, from the center of the sphere. [Nelson’s entry

does not show the italics on distances, the capital T on The, or the new paragraph that Poe indi¬ cates in H.W.]

43

•

-

EUREKA. the part of Matter, while existing in a state of diffusion, to return into the Unity whence it was diffused; and, in the second place, the mind being called ona to determine the character of the desire—the man¬ ner in which it would, naturally, be manifested; in other words, be¬ ing called onb to conceive a probable law, or modus operandi, for the return; could not well help arriving at the conclusion that this law of return would be precisely the converse of the law of departure. That such would be the case, any one, at least, would be abundantiy justified in taking for granted, until such time as some person should suggest something like a plausible reason why it should not be the case—until such period as a law of return shall be imagined which the intellect can consider as preferable. 107

Matter, then, radiatedc into space with a force varying as the squares of the distances, might, a priori be supposed to return towards its cen¬ tre of radiationd with a force varying inversely as the squares of the dis¬ tances: and I have already shown" that any principle which will explain why the atoms should tend, according to any law, to the general cen¬ tre, must be admitted as satisfactorily explaining, at the same time, why, according to the same law, they should tend each to each. For, in fact, the tendency to the general centre is not to a centre as such, but be¬ cause of its being a point in tending towards which each atom tends most directly to its real and essential centre, Unity—the absolute and final Union of all.

108

The consideration here involved presents to my own mind no embarrassment whatever—but this fact does not blind me to the possibility of its being obscure to those who may have been less in the habit of dealing with abstractions:—and, one the whole, it may be as well to look at the matter from one or two other points of view.

109

The absolute, irrelative particle primarily created by the Volition of God, must have been in a condition of positive normality, or right¬ fulness—for wrongfulness implies relation. Right is positive; wrong is negative—is merely the negation of right; as cold is the negation of heat—darkness of light. That a thing may be wrong, it is necessary *Page[s 33-34.] [Poe’s note, referring to the pagination of P, reads, *Page 44.]

a. P upon / HW on b. P upon / HW on c. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated d P irradiation / NM, HW radiation e. P upon / HW on

44

'

'

THE UNIVERSE. that there be some other thing in relation to which it is wrong—some condition which it fails to satisfy; some law which it violates; some being whom it aggrieves. If there be no such being, law, or condi¬ tion, in respect to which the thing is wrong—and, still more espe¬ cially, if no beings, laws, or conditions exist at all—then the thing can not be wrong and consequently must be right. 110

Any3 deviation from normality involves a tendency to return into it. A difference from the normal—from the right—from the just— can be understood as effected only by the overcoming a difficulty; and if the force which overcomes the difficulty be not infinitely con¬ tinued, the ineradicable tendency to return will at length be permit¬ ted to act for its own satisfaction. Onb withdrawal of the force, the tendency acts. This is the principle of reaction as the inevitable con¬ sequence of finite action. Employing a phraseology of which the seeming affectation will be pardoned for its expressiveness, we may say that Reaction is the return from the condition of as it is and ought not to be into the condition of as it was, originally, and therefore ought to be:—and let me add here that the absolute force of Reaction would no doubt be always found in direct proportion with the reality—the truth—the absoluteness—of the originality—if ever it were possible to measure this latter:—and, consequently, the greatest of all con¬ ceivable reactions must be that manifested inc the tendency which we now discuss—the tendency to return into the absolutely original— into the supremely primitive. Gravity, then, must be the strongest of forces— an idea reached a priori and abundantly confirmed by induction. What use I make of the idea, will be seen in the sequel.

111

The atoms, now, having been diffused from their normal condi¬ tion of Unity, seek to return to-what? Not to any particular point, certainly; for it is clear that if, one the diffusion, the whole Universe of matter had been projected, collectively, to a distance from the point of radiation/ the atomic tendency to the general centre of the sphere would not have been disturbed in the least:—the atoms would not have sought the point in absolute space from which they

a. P [no paragraph] Any / HW [paragraph] Any b. P Upon / HW On c. P produced by / HW manifested in d. P original [italics] / HW original [Rom. See 1[ 31, note a.] e. P upon / HW on f. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

45

•

-

EUREKA. were originally impelled. It is merely the condition, and not the point or locality at which this condition took its rise, that these atoms seek to re-establish;—it is merely that condition which is their normality, that they desire. “But they seek a centre,” it will be said, “and a centre is a point.” True; but they seek this point not in its character of point—(for, were the whole sphere moved from its position, they would seek, equally, the centre; and the centre then would be a new point)—but because it so happens, on account of the form in which they collectively exist—(that of the sphere)—that only through the point in question—the sphere’s centre—they can attain their true object, Unity. In the direction of the centre each atom perceives more atoms than in any other direction. Each atom is impelled towards the centre because along the straight line joining it and the centre and passing on to the surface3 beyond, there lie a greater number of atoms than along any other straight line—joining it, the atom, with any point of the sphere—b a greater number of objects that seek it, the individual atom—a greater number of tendencies to Unity—a greater number of satisfactions for its own tendency to Unity—in a word, because in the direction of the centre lies the utmost possibility of satisfaction, generally, for its own individual appetite. To be brief, the condition, Unity, is all that is really sought; and if the atoms seem to seek the centre of the sphere, it is only impliedly—c through implication—because such centre happens to imply, to include, or to involve, the only essential centre, Unity. But on account of this implication or involution, there is no possi¬ bility of practically separating the tendency to Unity in the abstract, from the tendency to the concrete centre. Thus the tendency of the atoms to the general centre is, to all practical intents and for all logical purposes, the tendency each to each; and the tendency each to each is the tendency to the centre; and the one tendency may be assumed as the other; whatever will apply to the one must be thoroughly applicable to the other; and, in conclusion, whatev¬ er principle will satisfactorily explain the one, cannot be questioned as an explanation of the other. 112

In looking carefully around me for rational objection to what I

a. P circumference / HW surface b. P line— / NM line—joining it, the atom, and any point within the sphere [Nelson rejects this reading.] / HW line—-joining it, the atom, with any point of the sphere— c. P impliedly, / HW impliedly—

46

•

-

THE UNIVERSE. have advanced, I am able to discover nothing;3—but of that class of objections usually urged by the doubters for Doubt’s sake, I very readily perceive three; and proceed to dispose of them in order. 113

It may be said, first: “The proof that the force of radiationb (in the case described) is directly proportional with0 the squares of the dis¬ tances, depends ond an unwarranted assumption—that of the num¬ ber of atoms in each stratum being the measure of the force with which they are emitted.”

114

I reply, not only that I am warranted in such assumption, but that I should be utterly unwarranted in any other. What I assume is, sim¬ ply, that an effect is the measure of its cause—that every exercise of the Divine Will will be proportional withe that which demands the exertion—that the means of Omnipotence, or of Omniscience, will be exacdy adapted to its purposes. Neither can a deficiency nor an excess of cause bring to pass any effect. Had the force which radiatedf any stratum to its position, been either more or less than was need¬ ed for the purpose—that is to say, not directly proportional with8 the purpose—then to its position that stratum could not have been radiated.11 Had the force which, with a view to general equability of distribution, emitted the proper number of atoms for each stratum, been not directly proporttonal wi th1 the number, then the number would not have been the number demanded for the equable distribution.

115

The second supposable objection is somewhat better entitled to an answer.

116

It is an admitted principle in Dynamics that every body, on receiv¬ ing an impulse, or disposition to move, will move onward in a straight line, in the direction imparted by the impelling force, until deflect¬ ed, or stopped, by some other force. How then, it may be asked, is my first or external stratum of atoms to be understood as discontinu¬ ing their movement at the surface! Qf the imaginary glass sphere,

a. P nothing; [italics] / HW nothing; [Rom. See

31, note a.]

b. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation c. P to / NM, HW with d. P upon / HW on e. P to / NM, HW with f. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated g. P to / NM, HW with h. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated i. P to / NM, HW with j. P circumference / NM, HW surface [See K1 i6n.]

47

•

-

EUREKA. when no second force, of more than an imaginary character, appears, to account for the discontinuance? 117

I reply that the objection, in this case, actually does arise out of “an unwarranted assumption”—on the part of the objector—the assumption of a principle, in Dynamics, at an epoch when no “prin¬ ciples,” in anything, exist:—I use the word “principle,” of course, in the objector’s understanding of the word.

118

“In the beginning” we can admit—indeed we can comprehend— but one First Cause—the truly ultimate Principle—the Volition of God. The primary act—that of Radiation3 from Unity—must have been independent of all that which the world now calls “principle”— because all that we so designate is but a consequence of the reaction of that primary act:—I say “primary ” act; for the creation of the abso¬ lute material Particle13 is more properly to be regarded as a conception than as an “act” in the ordinary meaning of the term. Thus, we must regard the primary act as an act for the establishment of what we now call “principles.” But this primary act itself is to be considered as con¬ tinuous Volition. The Thought of God is to be understood as originat¬ ing the Diffusion—as proceeding with it—as regulating it—and, final¬ ly, as being withdrawn from it onc its completion. Then commences Reaction, and through Reaction, “Principle,” as we employ the word. It will be advisable, however, to limit the application of this word to the two immediate results of the discontinuance of the Divine Volition— that is, to the two agents, Attraction and Repulsion. Every other Natu¬ ral agent depends, either more or less immediately, ond these two, and therefore would be more conveniendy designated as sw6-principle.

119

It may be objected, thirdly, that, in general, the peculiar mode of distribution which I have suggested for the atoms, is “an hypothesis and nothing more.”

120

Now, I am aware that the word “hypothesis”e is a ponderous sledge-hammer, grasped immediately, if not lifted, by all very dimin¬ utive thinkers, on1 the first appearance of any proposition wearing, in any particular, the garb of a theory. But “hypothesis” cannot be

a. P Irradiation / NM, HW Radiation b. P particle / HW Particle c. P upon / HW on d. P upon / HW on e. P hypothesis / HW “hypothesis” f. P upon / HW on

.48

•

THE UNIVERSE. wielded here to any good purpose, even by those who succeed in lift¬ ing it—little men or great. 121

I maintain, first, that only in the mode described is it conceivable that Matter could have been diffused so as to fulfil at once the con¬ ditions of radiation3 and of generally equable distribution. I main¬ tain, secondly, that these conditions themselves have been imposed upon me, as necessities, in a train of ratiocination as rigorously log¬ ical as that which establishes any demonstration in Euclid;*5 and I maintain, thirdly, that even if the charge of “hypothesis” were as ful¬ ly sustained as it is, in fact, unsustained and untenable, still the va¬ lidity and indisputability of my result would not, even in the slight¬ est particular, be disturbed.

122

To explain:—The Newtonian Gravity—a law of Nature—a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions—a law whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the Uni¬ versal phenomena—a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phaenomena, we are perfectly willing, with¬ out reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law—a law, nevertheless, of which neither the princi¬ ple nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis—a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of explanation at all—is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly explicable, provided only we yield our assent to-what? To an hypothesis? Why,c if an hypothesis—if the merest hypothesis—if an hypothesis for whose as¬ sumption—as in the case of that pure hypothesis the Newtonian law itself—no shadow of a priori reason could be assigned—if an hypoth¬ esis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law—would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so miraculously—so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us,—what rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer—unless, indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency in words ?

a. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation b. P as rigorously logical as that which establishes any demonstration in Euclid; [italics] / HW as rigor¬ ously logical as that which establishes any demonstration in Euclid; [Rom. See H31, note a.]

c. P Why / HW Why,

•49-

EUREKA. 123

But what is the true state of our present case? What is the fact ? Not only that it is not an hypothesis which we are required to adopt, in order to admit the principle at issue explained, but that it is a logi¬ cal conclusion which we are requested not to adopt if we can avoid it—which we are simply invited to deny if we can:—a conclusion of so accurate a logicality that to dispute it would be the effort—to doubt its validity beyond our power:—a conclusion from which we see no mode of escape, turn as we will; a result which confronts us either at the end of an inductive journey from the phaenomena of the very Law discussed, or at the close of a deductive career from the most rigorously simple of all conceivable assumptions—the assump¬ tion, in a word, of Simplicity itself

124

And if here,a it be urged, that although my starting-point is, as I assert, the assumption of absolute Simplicity, yet Simplicity, consid¬ ered merely in itself, is no axiom; and that only deductions from axioms are indisputable—it is thus that I reply:b

125

Every other science than Logic is the science of certain concrete relations. Arithmetic, for example, is the science of the relations of number—Geometry, of the relations of form—Mathematics in gen¬ eral, of the relations of quantity in general—of whatever can be in¬ creased or diminished. Logic, however, is the science of Relation in the abstract—of absolute Relation—of Relation considered solely in itself. An axiom in any particular science other than Logic is, thus, merely a proposition announcing certain concrete relations which seem to be too obvious for dispute—as when we say, for instance, that the whole is greater than its part:—and, thus again, the principle of the Logical axiom—in other words, of an axiom in the abstract—is, simply, obviousness of relation. Now, it is clear, not only that what is obvious to one mind may not be obvious to another, but that what is obvious to one mind at one epoch, may be anything but obvious, at another epoch, to the same mind. It is clear, moreover, that what, to-day, is obvious even to the majority of mankind, may to-morrow be, to either majority, more or less obvious, or in no respect obvious at all. It is seen, then, that the axiomatic principle itself is susceptible of variation, and of course that axioms are susceptible of similar change. Being mutable, the “truths” which grow out of them are

a. P here, for the mere sake of cavilling, / HW here, b. P reply:— / HW reply:

•5o-

THE UNIVERSE. necessarily mutable too; or, in other words, are never to be positively depended ona as truths at all—since Truth and Immutability are one. 126

It will now be readily understood that no axiomatic idea—no idea founded in the fluctuating principle, obviousness of relation—can possibly be so secure—so reliable a basis for any structure erected by the Reason, as thatidea—(whatever it is, wherever we can find it, or if it be practicable to find it anywhere)—which is irrelative altogether— which not only presents to the understanding no obviousness of rela¬ tion, either greater or less, to be considered, but subjects the intellect, not in the slightest degree, to the necessity of even looking at any re¬ lation at all. If such an idea be not what we too heedlessly term “an axiom,” it is at least preferable, as a logical13 basis, to any axiom ever propounded, or to all imaginable axioms combined:—and such, pre¬ cisely, is the idea with which my deductive process, so thoroughly corroborated by induction, commences. My Particlec Properd is but Absolutee Irrelation.

127

Tof sum up what has been here advanced:—-As a starting point I have taken it for granted, simply, that the Beginning had nothing behind it or before it—that it was a Beginning in fact—that it was a Beginnings and nothing different from a Beginning11—in short that this Beginning was-that which it was. If this be a “mere assump¬ tion” then a “mere assumption” let it be.

128

To conclude this branch of the subject:—I am fully warranted in announcing that the Law which we call* 1 Gravity exists on account of Mat¬ ter’s having been radiated) at its origin, atomically, into a limited* sphere of Space, from one, individual, unconditional, irrelative, and absolute Par*A sphere is necessarily limited. I prefer tautology to a chance of misconception.k

a. P upon / HW on b. P Logical / HW logical c. P particle [italics] / HW Particle [italics] [We follow HW.] d. P proper [italics] / HW Proper [italics] [We follow HW.] e. P “absolute” [italics] / HW “Absolute” [italics] [We follow HW.] f. P [no paragraph] To / HW [paragraph] To g. P beginning / NM, HW Beginning h. P beginning / NM, HW Beginning i. P we have been in the habit of calling [italics] / HW we call [italics] j. P irradiated [italics] / NM, HW radiated [italics] [We follow HW.] k. P “^Limited sphere”—A sphere is necessarily limited. I prefer tautology to a chance of mis¬ conception. / NM, HW *A sphere is necessarily [italics] limited. I prefer tautology to a chance of mis¬ conception. [In NM, Poe neglected to strike out the dash before “A sphere,” a variation Nelson

omits.]

'

5 1

*

EUREKA. tide Proper, by the sole process in which it was possible to satisfy, at the same time, the two conditions, radiationa and equableb distribution throughout the sphere—that is to say, by a force varying in direct proportion with the squares of the distances between the radiatedc atoms, respectively, and the Particular centre of Radiation .d 129

I have already given my reasons for presuming Matter to have been diffused by a determinate rather than by a continuous or infinitely continued force. Supposing a continuous force, we should be unable, in the first place, to comprehend a reaction at all; and we should be required, in the second place, to entertain the impossible concep¬ tion of an infinite extension of Matter. Not to dwell upon the impos¬ sibility of the conception, the infinite extension of Matter is an idea which, if not positively disproved, is at least not in any respect war¬ ranted by telescopic observation of the stars—a point to be explained more fully hereafter; and this empirical reason for believing in the original finity of Matter is unempirically confirmed. For example:— Admitting, for the moment, the possibility of understanding Space as fillede with the radiatedf atoms—that is to say, admitting, as well as we can, for argument’s sake, that the succession of the atomsS had absolutely no end—then it is clearh that, even when the Volition of God had been withdrawn from them, and thus the tendency to re¬ turn into Unity permitted (abstractly) to be satisfied, this permission would have been nugatory and invalid—practically valueless and of no effect whatever. No Reaction could have taken place; no move¬ ment toward Unity could have been made; no Law of Gravity could have obtained.

130

To explain:—Grant the abstract tendency of any one atom to any one other as the inevitable result of diffusion from the normal Unity:— or, what is the same thing, admit any given atom as proposing to move in any given direction—it is clear that, since there is an infinity of atoms on all sides of the atom proposing to move, it never can actu¬ ally move toward the satisfaction of its tendency in the direction giv-

a. P irradiation, [italics] / NM radiation, / HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] b. P and generally-equable [italics] / HW and equable [italics] [We follow HW.] c. P irradiated [italics] / NM, HW radiated [italics] [We follow HW.] d. P Irradiation [italics] / NM, HW Radiation [italics] [We follow HW.] e. P Space filled [italics] / HW Space as filled [filled italicized] [We follow HW.] f. P irradiated / NM, HW radiated g. P the irradiated atoms / HW the atoms h. P is abundantly clear / HW is clear

•52-

THE UNIVERSE. en, on account of a precisely equal and counter-balancing tenden¬ cy in the direction diametrically opposite. In other words, exactly as many tendencies to Unity are behind the hesitating atom as before it; for it is merea follyb to say that one infinite line is longer or short¬ er than another infinite line, or that one infinite number is greater or less than another number that is infinite. Thus the atom in ques¬ tion must remain stationary forever. Under the impossible circum¬ stances which we have been merely endeavoring to conceive for ar¬ gument’s sake, there could have been no aggregation of Matter—no stars—no worlds—nothing but a perpetually atomic and inconse¬ quential Universe. In fact, view it as we will, the whole idea of unlim¬ ited Matter is not only untenable, but impossible and preposterous. 131

With the understanding of a sphere of atoms, however, we perceive, at once, a satisfiable tendency to union. The general result of the ten¬ dency each to each, being a tendency of all to the centre, the general process of condensation, or approximation, commences immediately, by a common and simultaneous movement, on withdrawal of the Divine Volition; the individual approximations, or coalescences of atom with atom,c being subject to almost infinite variations of time, degree, and condition, on account of the excessive multiplicity of relation, arising from the differences of form assumed as character¬ izing the atoms at the moment of their quitting the Particle Proper; as well as from the subsequent particular inequidistance, each from each.

132

What I wish to impress upon the reader is the certainty of there arising, at once, (on withdrawal of the diffusive force, or Divine Voli¬ tion,) out of the condition of the atoms as described, at innumera¬ ble points throughout the Universal sphere, innumerable agglomer¬ ations, characterized by innumerable specific differences of form, size, essential nature, and distance each from each. The development of Repulsion (Electricity) must have commenced, of course, with the very earliest particular efforts at Unity, and must have proceeded constantly in the ratio of coalescenced—that is to say, in that of Con¬ densation, or, again, of Heterogeneity.

a. P a mere / HW mere b. P sotticism / HW folly c. P or coalescences—not coalitions / HW or coalescences [Nelson’s list makes it seem that Poe struck out “of atom” in HW. Poe did not.] d. P Coalescence / HW coalescence

•53-

EUREKA. 133

Thus the two Principles Proper, Attraction and Repulsion—the Ma¬ terial and the Spiritual—accompany each other, in the strictest fel¬ lowship, forever. Thus The Body and The Soul walk hand in hand.

134

If now, in fancy, we select any onea of the agglomerations consid¬ ered as in their primary stages throughout the Universal sphere, and suppose this incipient agglomeration to be taking place at that point where the centre of our Sun exists—or rather where it did exist orig¬ inally; for the Sun is perpetually shifting his position—we shall find ourselves met, and borne onward for a time at least, by the most magnificent of theories—by the Nebular Cosmogony of Laplace:— although “Cosmogony” is far too comprehensive a term for what he really discusses—which is the constitution of our solar system alone— of one among the myriad of similar systems which make up the Uni¬

verse of Stars.b 135 Confining himself to an obviously limited region—that of our solar system with its comparatively immediate vicinity—and merely assum¬ ing—that is to say, assuming without any basis whatever,—Cmuch of what I have been just endeavoring to place upon a more stable basis than assumption; assuming, for example, matter as diffused (with¬ out pretending to account for the diffusion) throughout, and some¬ what beyond, the space occupied by our system—diffused in a state of heterogeneous nebulosity and obedient to that omniprevalent law of Gravity at whose principle he ventured to make no guess;—assum¬ ing all this (which is quite true, although he had no logical right to its assumption) Laplace has shown, dynamically and mathematical¬ ly, that the results in such case necessarily ensuing, are those and those alone which we find manifested in the actually existing condi¬ tion of the system itself. 136

To explain:—Let us conceive that particular agglomeration of which we have just spoken—the one at the point designated by our Sun’s centre—to have so far proceeded that a vast quantity of neb¬ ulous matter has here assumed a roughly globular form; its centre being, of course, coincident with what is now, or rather was origi¬ nally, the centre of our Sun; and its surfaced extending out beyond

a. P any one [italics] / HW any one [Rom.] See f 31, note a. [We follow HW.] b. P the Universe Proper-—that Universal sphere—that all-inclusive and absolute Kosmos which forms the subject of my present Discourse / HW the Universe of Stars. c. P whatever, either deductive or inductive / HW whatever, d. P periphery / HW surface

•54-

THE UNIVERSE. the orbit of Neptune, the most remote of our planets:—in other words, let us suppose the diameter of this rough sphere to be some 6000

millions of miles. For ages, this mass of matter has been un¬

dergoing condensation, until at length it has become reduced into the bulk we imagine; having proceeded gradually, of course, from its atomic and imperceptible state, into what we understand of ap¬ preciable3 nebulosity. 137

Now, the condition of this mass implies a rotation about an imag¬ inary axis—a rotation which, commencing with the absolute incipiency of the aggregation, has been ever since acquiring velocity. The very first two atoms which met, approaching each other from points not diametrically opposite, would, in rushing partially past each oth¬ er, form a nucleus for the rotary movement described. How this would increase in velocity, is readily seen. The two atoms are joined by others:—an aggregation is formed. The mass continues to rotate while condensing. But any atom at the surface13 has, of course, a more rapid motion than one nearer the centre. The outer atom, howev¬ er, with its superior velocity, approaches the centre; carrying this superior velocity with it as it goes. Thus every atom, proceeding in¬ wardly, and finally attaching itself to the condensed centre, adds something to the original velocity of that centre—that is to say, in¬ creases the rotary movement of the mass.

138

Let us now suppose this mass so far condensed that it occupies precisely the space circumscribed by the orbit of Neptune, and that the velocity with which the surface of the mass moves, in the gener¬ al rotation, is precisely that velocity with which Neptune now revolves about the Sun. At this epoch, then, we are to understand that the constantly increasing centrifugal force, having gotten the better of the non-increasing centripetal, loosened and separated the exteri¬ or and least condensed stratum, or a few of the exterior and least condensed strata, at the equator of the sphere, where the tangen¬ tial velocity predominated; so that these strata formed about the main body an independent ring encircling the equatorial regions:— just as the exterior portion thrown off, by excessive velocity of rota¬ tion, from a grindstone, would form a ring about the grindstone, but for the solidity of the superficial material: were this caoutchouc, or

a. P of visible, palpable, or otherwise appreciable / HW of appreciable b. P circumference / HW surface

•55-

EUREKA. anything similar in consistency, precisely the phaenomenon I de¬ scribe would be presented. 139

The ring thus whirled from the nebulous mass, revolved, of course, as a separate ring, with just that velocity with which, while the sur¬ face of the mass, it rotated. In the meantime, condensation still pro¬ ceeding, the interval between the discharged ring and the main body continued to increase, until the former was left at a vast distance from the latter.

140

Now, admitting the ring to have possessed, by some seemingly accidental arrangement of its heterogeneous materials, a constitu¬ tion nearly uniform, then this ring, as such, would never have ceased revolving about its primary; but, as might have been anticipated, there appears to have been enough irregularity in the disposition of the materials, to make them cluster about centres of superior solid¬ ity; and thus the annular form was destroyed.* No doubt, the band was soon broken up into several portions, and one of these portions, predominating in mass, absorbed the others into itself; the whole settling, spherically, into a planet. That this latter, as a planet, con¬ tinued the revolutionary movement which characterized it while a ring, is sufficiently clear; and that it took upon itself, also, an addi¬ tional movement in its new condition of sphere, is readily explained. The ring being understood as yet unbroken, we see that its exterior, while the whole revolves about the parent body, moves more rapid¬ ly than its interior. When the rupture occurred, then, some portion in each fragment must have been moving with greater velocity than the others. The superior movement prevailing, must have whirled each fragment round—that is to say, have caused it to rotate; and the direction of the rotation must, of course, have been the direction of the revolution whence it arose. All the fragments having become subject to the rotation described, must, in coalescing,3 have impart¬ ed it to the one planet constituted by their coalescence.13—This plan¬ et was Neptune. Its material continuing to undergo condensation, *Laplace assumed his nebulosity heterogeneous, merely that he might be thus en¬ abled to account for the breaking up of the rings; for had the nebulosity been homo¬ geneous, they would not have broken. I reach the same result—heterogeneity of the secondary masses immediately resulting from the atoms—purely from an a priori con¬ sideration of their general design—Relation.

a. P coalescing / HW coalescing b. P coalescence / HW coalescence

■

5 6

•

THE UNIVERSE. and the centrifugal force generated in its rotation getting, at length, the better of the centripetal, as before in the case of the parent orb, a ring was whirled also from the equatorial surface of this planet: this ring, having been ununiform in its constitution, was broken up, and its several fragments, being absorbed by the most massive, were col¬ lectively spherified into a moon. Subsequently, the operation was repeated, and a second moon was the result. We thus account for the planet Neptune, with the two satellites which accompany him.*a 141

In throwing off a ring from its equator, the Sun re-established that equilibrium between its centripetal and centrifugal forces which had been disturbed in the process of condensation; but, as this conden¬ sation still proceeded, the equilibrium was again immediately dis¬ turbed, through the increase of rotation. By the time the mass had so far shrunk that it occupied a spherical space just that circum¬ scribed by the orbit of Uranus, we are to understand that the cen¬ trifugal force had so far obtained the ascendency that new relief was needed: a second equatorial band was, consequently, thrown off, which, proving ununiform, was broken up, as before in the case of Neptune; the fragments settling into the planet Uranus; the veloci¬ ty of whose actual revolution about the Sun indicates, of course, the rotary speed of that Sun’s equatorial surface at the moment of the separation. Uranus, adopting a rotation from the collective rotations of the fragments composing it, as previously explained, now threw off ring after ring; each of which, becoming broken up, settled into a moon:—three moons, at different epochs, having been formed, in this manner, by the rupture and general spherihcation of as many distinct ununiform rings.

142

By the time the Sun had shrunk until it occupied a space just that circumscribed by the orbit of Saturn, the balance, we are to suppose, between its centripetal and centrifugal forces had again become so far disturbed, through increase of rotary velocity, the result of con¬ densation, that a third effort at equilibrium became necessary; and an annular band was therefore whirled off, as twice before; which, *When this book went to press the ringoi Neptune had not been positively determined. [New footnote inscribed in pencil, HW.]

a. P accompany him. / NM *When this work went to press it was not definitely ascertained that Neptune had a ring. / HW * When this book went to press the ring of Neptune had not been positively determined. [Poe added the asterisk and note. He also italicized the word ring in this sentence in

NM and in HW. Nelson gives “previously” instead of “positively” for HW.]

•57-

EUREKA. on rupture through ununiformity, became consolidated into the planet Saturn. This latter threw off, in the first place, seven ununi¬ form3 bands, which on rupture, were spherified respectively into as many moons; but, subsequently, it appears to have discharged, at three distinct but not very distant epochs, three rings whose equa¬ bility of constitution was, by apparent accident, so considerable as to present no occasion for their rupture; thus they continue to re¬ volve as rings. I use the phrase “apparent accident;” for of accident in the ordinary sense there was, of course, nothing:—the term is properly applied only to the result of indistinguishable or not im¬ mediately traceable law. 143

Shrinking still farther, until it occupied just the space circum¬ scribed by the orbit of Jupiter, the Sun now found need of farther effort to restore the counterbalance of its two forces, continually disarranged in the still continued increase of rotation. Jupiter, ac¬ cordingly, was now thrown off; passing from the annular to the plan¬ etary condition; and, on attaining this latter, threw off in its turn, at four different epochs, four rings, which finally resolved themselves into so many moons.

144

Still shrinking, until its sphere occupiedjust the space defined by the orbit of the Asteroids, the Sun now discarded a ring which ap¬ pears to have had nine0 centres of superior solidity, and, on break¬ ing up, to have separated into ninec fragments no one of which so far predominated in mass as to absorb the others.*d All therefore, as distinct although comparatively small planets, proceeded to re¬ volve in orbits whose distances, each from each, may be considered as in some degree the measure of the force which drove them asun¬ der:—all the orbits, nevertheless, being so closely coincident6 as to admit of our calling them one, in view of the other planetary orbits. NM *An additional asteroid has been discovered since the work went to press / HW *Another asteroid discovered since this work went to press. [Poe’s handwritten memorandum, HW. Because of the informal wording, we agree with Nelson (“An Appa¬ ratus for a Definitive Edition”) that this is Poe’s memorandum to himself and not a finished footnote.] [No asterisk, note, or memo in P. Poe’s handwritten comment in NM reads more like a finished footnote than does his memo in HW.]

a. P seven uniform / W, NM, HW, seven ununiform b. P eight [italics] / NM, HW nine [italics] [We follow HW.] c. P eight / NM, HW nine d. P the others. e. P coincident / HW coincident

•58.

THE UNIVERSE. 145

Continuing to shrink, the Sun, on becoming so small as just to fill the orbit of Mars, now discharged this planet—of course by the pro¬ cess repeatedly described. Since he has3 no moon, however, Mars could have thrown off no ring. In fact, an epoch had now arrived in the career of the parent body, the centre of the system. The decrease of its nebulosity, which is the increase of its density, and which again is the decrease of its condensation, out of which latter arose the con¬ stant disturbance of equilibrium—must, by this period, have attained a point at which the efforts for restoration would have been more and more ineffectual just in proportion as they were less frequently needed. Thus the processes of which we have been speaking would everywhere show signs of exhaustion—in the planets, first, and sec¬ ondly, in the original mass. We must not fall into the error of sup¬ posing the decrease of interval observed among the planets as we approach the Sun, to be in any respect indicative of an increase of frequency in the periods at which they were discarded. Exactly the converse is to be understood. The longest interval of time must have occurred between the discharges of the two interior; the shortest between those of the two exterior, planets. The decrease of the in¬ terval of space is, nevertheless, the measure of the density, and thus inversely of the condensation, of the Sun, throughout the processes detailed.

146

Having shrunk, however, so far as to fill only the orbit of our Earth, the parent sphere whirled from itself still one other body—the Earth— in a condition so nebulous as to admit of this body’s discarding, in its turn, yet another, which is our Moon;—but here terminated the lu¬ nar formations.

147

Finally, subsiding to the orbits first of Venus and then of Mercury, the Sun discarded these two interior planets; neither of which has given birth to any moon.

148

Thus from his original bulk—or, to speak more accurately, from the condition in which we first considered him—from a partially spherified nebular mass, certainly much more than

5,600

millions of

miles in diameter—the great central orb and origin of our solar-plan¬ etary-lunar system, has gradually descended, by condensation, in obedience to the law of Gravity, to a globe only

882,000

miles in

diameter; but it by no means follows, either that its condensation is a. P Having no / HW Since he has no

•59‘

EUREKA. yet complete, or that it may not still possess the capacity of whirling 149

from itself another planet. I have here given—in outline of course, but still with all the de¬ tail necessary for distinctness—a view of the Nebular Theory as its author himself conceived it. From whatever point we regard it, we shall find it beautifully true. It is by far too beautiful, indeed, not to possess Truth as its essentiality—and here I am very profoundly se¬ rious in what I say. In the revolution of the satellites of Uranus, there does appear something seemingly inconsistent with the assumptions of Laplace; but that one inconsistency can invalidate a theory con¬ structed from a million of intricate consistencies, is a fancy fit only for the fantastic. In prophesying,a confidently, that the apparent anomaly to which I refer, will, sooner or later, be found one of the strongest possible corroborations of the general hypothesis, I pre¬ tend to no especial spirit of divination. It is a matter which the only difficulty seems not to foresee/

150

The bodies whirled off in the processes described, would exchange, it has been seen, the superficial rotation of the orbs whence they orig¬ inated, for a revolution of equal velocity about these orbs as distant centres; and the revolution thus engendered must proceed, so long as the centripetal force, or that with which the discarded body grav¬ itates toward its parent, is neither greater nor less than that by which it was discarded; that is, than the centrifugal, or, far more properly, than the tangential, velocity. From the unity, however, of the origin of these two forces, we might have expected to find them as they are found—the one accurately counterbalancing the other. It has been shown, indeed, that the act of whirling-off is, in every case, merely an act for the preservation of the counterbalance.

151

After referring, however, the centripetal force to the omniprevalent law of Gravity, it has been the fashion with astronomical treatises, to seek beyond the limits of mere Nature—that is to say, of Secondary Cause—a solution of the phenomenon of tangential velocity. This latter they attribute direcdy to a First Cause—to God. The force which *1 am prepared to show that the anomalous revolution of the satellites of Uranus is a simply perspective anomaly arising from the bouleversementh of the axis of the planet.

a. P, HW prophecying / NM prophesying [We assume Poe overlooked the spelling error in HW. The word prophesy does not appear in Pollin’s Word Index to Poe's Fiction, and so there was no convenient way to check for other instances of Poe’s practice.] b. P inclination / HW bouleversement [italics]

• 6 o •

THE UNIVERSE. carries a stellar body around its primary they assert to have originat¬ ed in an impulse given immediately by the finger—this is the child¬ ish phraseology employed—by the finger of Deity itself. In this view, the planets, fully formed, are conceived to have been hurled from the Divine hand, to a position in the vicinity of the suns, with an impetus mathematically adapted to the masses, or attractive capacities, of the suns themselves. An idea so grossly unphilosophical, although so su¬ pinely adopted, could have arisen only from the difficulty of other¬ wise accounting for the absolutely accurate adaptation, each to each, of two forces so seemingly independent, one of the other, as are the gravitating and tangential. But it should be remembered that, for a long time, the coincidence between the moon’s rotation and her si¬ dereal revolution—two matters seemingly far more independent than those now considered—was looked upon as positively miraculous; and there was a strong disposition, even among astronomers, to attribute the marvel to the direct and continual agency of God—who, in this case, it was said, had found it necessary to interpose, specially, among his general laws, a set of subsidiary regulations, for the purpose of forever concealing from mortal eyes the glories, or perhaps the hor¬ rors, of the other side of the Moon—of that mysterious hemisphere which has always avoided, and must perpetually avoid, the telescopic scrutiny of mankind. The advance of Science, however, soon demon¬ strated—what to the philosophical instinct needed no demonstra¬ tion—that the one movement is but a portion—something more, even, than a consequence—of the other. 152

For my part, I have no patience with fantasies at once so timorous, so idle, and so awkward. They belong to the veriest cowardice3 of thought. That Nature and the God of Nature are distinct, no think¬ ing being can long doubt. By the former we imply merely the laws of the latter. But with the very idea of God, omnipotent, omniscient, we entertain, also, the idea of the infallibility of his laws. With Him there being neither Past nor Future—with Him all being Now—do we not insult him in supposing his laws so contrived as not to pro¬ vide for every possible contingency?—or, rather, what idea can we have of any possible contingency, except that it is at once a result and a manifestation of his laws? He who, divesting himself of prejudice, shall have the rare courage to think absolutely for himself, cannot

a. P cowardice [italics] / HW cowardice [Rom.] See I31, note a.

• 6

1

■

EUREKA. fail to arrive, in the end, at the condensation of laws into Law— cannot fail of reaching the conclusion that each law of Nature is de¬ pendent at all points upon all other laws, and that all are but conse¬ quences of one primary exercise of the Divine Volition. Such is the principle of the Cosmogony which, with all necessary deference, I here venture to suggest and to maintain. 153

In this view, it will be seen that, dismissing as frivolous, and even impious, the fancy of the tangential force having been imparted to the planets immediately by “the finger of God,” I consider this force as originating in the rotation of the stars:—this rotation as brought about by the in-rushing of the primary atoms, towards their respec¬ tive centres of aggregation:—this in-rushing as the consequence of the law of Gravity:—this law as but the mode in which is necessarily manifested the tendency of the atoms to return into imparticularity:— this tendency21 as but the inevitable reaction of the first and most sub¬ lime of Acts—that act by which a God, self-existing and alone exist¬ ing, became all things at once, through dint of his volition, while all things were thus constituted a portion of God.

154

The radical assumptions of this Discourse suggest to me, and in fact imply, certain important modifications of the Nebular Theory as giv¬ en by Laplace. The efforts of the repulsive power I have considered as made for the purpose of preventing contact among the atoms, and thus as made in the ratio of the approach to contact—that is to say, in the ratio of condensation.* In other words, Electricity, with its invo¬ lute phsenomena, heat, light and magnetism, is to be understood as proceeding as condensation proceeds, and, of course, inversely as density proceeds, or the cessation to condense. Thus the Sun, in the process of its consolidation,13 must soon, in developing repulsion, have become excessively heated—incandescent:0 and we can perceive how the operation of discarding its rings must have been materially assisted by the slight encrustation01 of its surface consequent on cool¬ ing. Any common experiment shows us how readily a crust of the character suggested, is separated, through heterogeneity, from the interior mass. But, on every successive rejection of the crust, the new *See page 53 / [Poe’s note in P., referring to tire pagination of P, reads “*See page 70.”].

a. P tendency to return / HW tendency b. P aggregation / HW consolidation c. P heated—perhaps incandescent / HW heated—incandescent d. P incrustation / HW encrustation

•62-

THE UNIVERSE. surface would appear incandescent as before; and the period at which it would again become so far encrusted as to be readily loosened and discharged, may well be imagined as exactly coincident3 with that at which a new effort would be needed, by the whole mass, to restore the equilibrium of its two forces, disarranged through condensation. In other words:—by the time the electric influence (Repulsion) has prepared the surface for rejection, we are to understand that the gravitating influence (Attraction) is precisely ready to reject it. Here, then, as everywhere, the Body and the Soul walk hand in hand. 155

These ideas are empirically confirmed at all points. Since conden¬ sation can never, in any body, be considered as absolutely at an end, we are warranted in anticipating that, whenever we have an oppor¬ tunity of testing the matter, we shall find indications of resident lu¬ minosity in all the stellar bodies—moons and planets as well as suns. That our Moon is self-luminous,13 we see at her every total eclipse, when, if not so, she would disappear. On the dark part of the satel¬ lite, too, during her phases, we often observe flashes like our own Auroras; and that these latter, with our various other so-called elec¬ trical phenomena, without reference to any more steady radiance, must give our Earth a certain appearance of luminosity to an inhab¬ itant of the Moon, is quite evident. In fact, we should regard all the phsenomena referred to, as mere manifestations, in different moods and degrees, of the Earth’s feebly-continued condensation.

156

If my views are tenable, we should be prepared to find the newer planets—that is to say, those nearer the Sun—more luminous than those older and more remote:—and the extreme brilliancy of Ve¬ nus (on whose dark portions, during her phases, the Auroras are frequently visible) does not seem to be altogether accounted for by her mere proximity to the central orb. She is no doubt vividly selfluminous, although less so than Mercury: while the luminosity of Neptune may be comparatively nothing.

157

Admitting what I have urged, it is clear that, from the moment of the Sun’s discarding a ring, there must be a continuous diminution both of his heat and light, on account of the continuous encrustation of his surface; and that a period would arrive—the period immediately previous to a new discharge—when a very material decrease of both

a. P coincident / HW coincident b. P Moon is strongly self-luminous / W Moon is self-luminous

•

6

3

•

EUREKA. light and heat, must become apparent. Now, we know that tokens of such changes are distinctly recognizable. On the Melville islands— to adduce merely one out of a hundred examples—we find traces of ultra-tropical vegetation—of plants that never could have flourished without immensely more light and heat than are at present afforded by our Sun to any portion of the surface of the Earth. Is such vegeta¬ tion referable to an epoch immediately subsequent to the whirlingoff of Venus? At this epoch must have occurred to us our greatest ac¬ cess of solar influence; and, in fact, this influence must then have attained its maximum:—leaving out of view, of course, the period when the Earth itself was discarded—the period of its mere organization. 158

Again:—we know that there exist non-luminous suns—that is to say, suns whose existence we determine through the movements of oth¬ ers, but whose luminosity is not sufficient to impress us. Are these suns invisible merely on account of the length of time elapsed since their discharge of a planet? And yet again:—may we not—at least in certain cases—account for the sudden appearances of suns where none had been previously suspected, by the hypothesis that, having rolled with encrusted surfaces throughout the few thousand years of our astronomical history, each of these suns, in whirling off a new secondary, has at length been enabled to display the glories of its still incandescent interior?—To the well-ascertained fact of the propor¬ tional increase of heat as we descend into the Earth, I need of course, do nothing more than refer:—it comes in the strongest possible corroboration of all that I have said on the topic now at issue.

159

In speaking, not long ago, of the repulsive or electrical influence, I remarked that “the important phaenomena of vitality, conscious¬ ness, and thought, whether we observe them generally or in detail, seem to proceed at least in the ratio of the heterogeneous. ”* I mentioned, too, that I would recur to the suggestion:—and this is the proper point at which to do so. Looking at the matter, first, in detail, we perceive that not merely the manifestation of vitality, but its impor¬ tance, consequence, and elevation of character, keep pace, very close¬ ly, with the heterogeneity, or complexity, of the animal structure. Looking at the question, now, in its generality, and referring to the first movements of the atoms towards mass-constitution, we find that *Page 28a.

a. P *Page 36 / O, NM, HW *Page 37 [Poe corrected an error in P; the words quoted are on page 37 of the 1848 edition.] For the present edition, the note should read, * Page 28. •64-

THE UNIVERSE. heterogeneousness, brought about directly through condensation, is proportional with it forever. We thus reach the proposition that the importance of the development of the terrestrial vitality proceeds asa the terrestrial condensation. 160

Now this is inb accordance with what we know of the succession of animals on the Earth. As it has proceeded in its condensation, supe¬ rior and still superior races have appeared. Is it impossible that the successive geological revolutions which have attended, at least, if not immediately caused, these successive elevations of vitalic character— is it improbable that these revolutions have themselves been pro¬ duced by the successive planetary discharges from the Sun—in oth¬ er words, by the successive variations in the solar influence on the Earth? Were this idea tenable, we should not be unwarranted in the fancy that the discharge of yet a new planet, interior to Mercury, may give rise to yet a new modification of the terrestrial surface—a modifi¬ cation from which may spring a race both materially and spiritually superior to Man. These thoughts impress me with all the force of truth—but I throw them out, of course, merely in their obvious char¬ acter of suggestion.

161

The Nebular Theory of Laplace has lately received far more confir¬ mation than it needed, at the hands of the philosopher, Comte.c These two have thus together shown—not, to be sure, that Matter at any period actually existed as described, in a state of nebular diffusion, but that, admitting it so to have existed throughout the space and much beyond the space now occupied by our solar system, and to have com¬ menced a movement towards a centre—it must gradually have assumed the various forms and motions which are now seen, in that system, to obtain. A demonstration such as this—a dynamical and mathemati¬ cal demonstration, as far as demonstration can be—and one empiri¬ cally confirmed—a demonstration13—unquestionable and unques¬ tioned—unless, indeed, by that unprofitable and disreputable tribe, the professional questioners—the mere madmen who deny the New¬ tonian law of Gravity on which the results of the French mathemati-

a. P, HW proceeds equably with [italics] / NM proceeds as [italics] [The NM seems clearer. Poe’s sense is “proceeds as a function of the terrestrial condensation. ”] b. P in precise accordance / HW in accordance c. P Compte. / HW Comte. d. P can be— / HW can be—and one empirically confirmed—a demonstration—- [Nelson omits the word “one. ”] •65-

EUREKA. dans are based—a demonstration, I say, such as this, would to most intellects be conclusive—and I confess that it is so to mine—of the validity of the nebular hypothesis upon which the demonstration de¬ 162

pends. That the demonstration does not prove the hypothesis, according to the common understanding of the word “proof,” I admit, of course. To show that certain existing results—that certain established facts— may be, even mathematically, accounted for by the assumption of a certain hypothesis, is by no means to establish the hypothesis itself. In other words:—to show that, certain data being given, a certain existing result might, or even must, have ensued, will fail to prove that this result did ensue, from the data, until such time as it shall be also shown that there are, and can be, no other data from which the re¬ sult in question might equally have ensued. But, in the case now dis¬ cussed, although all must admit the deficiency of what we are in the habit of terming “proof,” still there are many intellects, and those of the loftiest order, to which no proof could bring one iota of additional conviction. Without going into details which might impinge upon the Cloud-Land of Metaphysics, I may as well here observe that the force of conviction, in cases such as this will always, with the right-thinking, be proportional witha the amount of complexity intervening between the hypothesis and the result. To be less abstract:—The greatness of the complexity found existing among cosmical conditions, by render¬ ing great in the same proportion the difficulty of accounting for all these conditions at once, strengthens, also in the same proportion, our faith in that hypothesis which does, in such manner, satisfactorily account for them:—and as no complexity can well be conceived great¬ er than that of the astronomical conditions, so no conviction can be stronger—to my mind at least—than that with which I am impressed by an hypothesis that not only reconciles these conditions, with math¬ ematical accuracy, and reduces them into a consistent and intelligi¬ ble whole, but is, at the same time, the sole hypothesis by means of which the human intellect has been ever enabled to account for them at all.

163

A most unfounded opinion has become latterly current in gossip¬ ing and even in scientific circles—the opinion that the so-called Neb¬ ular Cosmogony has been overthrown. This fancy has arisen from the

a. P to / HW with •66-

THE UNIVERSE. report of late observations made, among what hitherto have been termed the “nebulae,” through the large telescope of Cincinnati, and the world-renowned instrument of Lord Rosse. Certain spots in the firmament which presented, even to the most powerful of the old telescopes, the appearance of nebulosity, or haze, had been regard¬ ed for a long time as confirming the theory of Laplace. They were looked upon as stars in that very process of condensation which I have been attempting to describe. Thus it was supposed that we “had ocu¬ lar evidence”—an evidence, by the way, which has always been found very questionable—of the truth of the hypothesis; and, although cer¬ tain telescopic improvements, every now and then, enabled us to per¬ ceive that a spot, here and there, which we had been classing among the nebulae, was, in fact, but a cluster of stars deriving its nebular character only from its immensity of distance—still it was throught that no doubt could exist as to the actual nebulosity of numerous other masses, the strong-holds of the nebulists, bidding defiance to every effort at segregation. Of these latter the most interesting was the great “nebula”a in the constellation Orion:—but this, with innumerable other miscalled “nebulas,” when viewed through the magnificent modern telescopes, has become resolved into a simple collection of stars. Now this fact has been very generally understood as conclusive against the Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace; and, on announcement of the discoveries in question, the most enthusiastic defender and most eloquent popularizer of the theory, Dr. Nichol, went so far as to “ad¬ mit the necessity of abandoning” an idea which had formed the ma¬ terial of his most praiseworthy book/ 164

Many of my readers will no doubt be inclined to say that the re¬ sult of these new investigations has at least a strong tendency to over¬ throw the hypothesis; while some of them, more thoughtful, will * “Views of the Architecture of the Heavens. ”A letter, purporting to be from Dr. Nichol to a friend in America, went the rounds of our newspapers, about two years ago, I think, ad¬ mitting “the necessity” to which I refer. In a subsequent Lecture, however, Dr. N. appears in some manner to have gotten the better of the necessity, and does not quite renounce the theory, although he seems to wish that he could sneer at it as “a purely hypothedcal one.” What else was the Law of Gravity before the Maskelyne experiments? and who ques¬ tioned the Law of Gravity, even then? The late experiments of Comte, however, are to the Laplacian theory what those of Maskelyne were to the Newtonian.15 [Last sentence in¬ scribed in pencil, HW.]

a. P “nebulae” / O, NM, HW “nebula” b. P then? / HW then ? The late experiments of Comte, however, are to the Laplacian theory what those of Maskelyne were to the Newtonian. •67-

EUREKA. suggest that, although the theory is by no means disproved through the segregation of the particular “nebulae” alluded to, still a failure to segregate them, with such telescopes, might well have been un¬ derstood as a triumphant corroboration of the theory:—and this lat¬ ter class will be surprised, perhaps, to hear me say that even with them I disagree. If the propositions of this Discourse have been compre¬ hended, it will be seen that, in my view, a failure to segregate the “nebulae” would have tended to the refutation, rather than to the confirmation, of the Nebular Hypothesis. 165

Let me explain:—The Newtonian Law of Gravity we may, of course, assume as demonstrated. This law, it will be remembered, I have referred to the reaction of the first Divine Act—to the reaction of an exercise of the Divine Volition temporarily overcoming a difficul¬ ty. This difficulty is that of forcing the normal into the abnormal— of impelling that whose originality, and therefore whose rightful condition, was One, to take upon itself the wrongful condition of Many. It is only by conceiving this difficulty as temporarily overcome, that we can comprehend a reaction. There could have been no reac¬ tion had the act been infinitely continued. So long as the act lasted, no reaction, of course, could commence; in other words, no gravi¬ tation could take place—for we have considered the one as but the manifestation of the other. But gravitation has taken place; therefore the act of Creation has ceased: and gravitation has long ago taken place; therefore the act of Creation has long ago ceased. We can no more expect, then, to observe the primary processes of Creation; and to these primary processes the condition of nebulosity has already been explained to belong.

166

Through what we know of the propagation of light, we have di¬ rect proof that the more remote of the stars have existed, under the forms in which we now see them, for an inconceivable number of years. So far back at least, then, as the period when these stars un¬ derwent condensation, must have been the epoch at which the massconstitutive processes began. That we may conceive these process¬ es, then, as still going on in the case of certain “nebulae,” while in all other cases we find them thoroughly at an end, we are forced into assumptions for which we have really no basis whatever—we have to thrust in, again, upon the revolting Reason, the blasphemous idea of special interposition—we have to suppose that, in the particular instances of these “nebulae,” an unerring God found it necessary to •68*

THE UNIVERSE. introduce certain supplementary regulations—certain improvements of the general law—certain retouchings and emendations, in a word, which had the effect of deferring the completion of these individual stars for centuries of centuries beyond the aera during which all the other stellar bodies had time, not only to be fully constituted, but to grow hoary with an unspeakable old age. 167

Of course, it will be immediately objected that since the light by which we recognize the nebulae now, must be merely that which left their surfaces a vast number of years ago, the processes at present observed, or supposed to be observed, are, in fact, not processes now actually going on, but the phantoms of processes completed long in the Past—just as I maintain all these mass-constitutive processes must have been.

168

To this I reply that neither is the now-observed condition of the condensed stars their actual condition, but a condition completed long in the Past; so that my argument drawn from the relative condi¬ tion of the stars and the “nebulas,” is in no manner disturbed. More¬ over, those who maintain the existence of nebulae, do not refer the nebulosity to extreme distance; they declare it a real and not merely a perspective nebulosity. That we may conceive, indeed, a nebular mass as visible at all, we must conceive it as very near us in comparison with the condensed stars brought into view by the modem telescopes. In maintaining the appearances in question, then, to be really nebu¬ lous, we maintain their comparative vicinity to our point of view. Thus, their condition, as we see them now, must be referred to an epoch far less remote than that to which we may refer the now-observed con¬ dition of at least the majority of the stars.—In a word, should Astron¬ omy ever demonstrate a “nebula,” in the sense at present intended, I should consider the Nebular Cosmogony—not, indeed, as corrobo¬ rated by the demonstration—but as thereby irretrievably overthrown.

169

By way, however, of rendering unto Caesar no more than the things that are Caesar’s, let me here remark that the assumption of the hy¬ pothesis which led him to so glorious a result, seems to have been suggested to Laplace in great measure by a misconception—by the very misconception of which we have just been speaking—by the generally prevalent misunderstanding of the character of the neb¬ ulae, so mis-named. These he supposed to be, in reality, what their designation implies. The fact is, this great man had, very properly, an inferior faith in his own merely perceptive powers. In respect, there-

•

6 9

•

EUREKA. fore, to the actual existence of nebulae—an existence so confident¬ ly maintained by his telescopic contemporaries—he depended less upon what he saw than upon what he heard. 170

It will be seen that the only valid objections to his theory, are those made to its hypothesis as such—to what suggested it—not to what it suggests; to its propositions rather than to its results. His most unwar¬ ranted assumption was that of giving the atoms a movement towards a centre, in the very face of his evident understanding that these at¬ oms, in unlimited succession, extended throughout the Univeral space. I have already shown that, under such circumstances, there could have occurred no movement at all; and Laplace, consequent¬ ly, assumed one on no more philosophical ground than that some¬ thing of the kind was necessary for the establishment of what he in¬

171

tended to establish. His original idea seems to have been a compound of the true Epi¬ curean atoms with the false nebulae of his contemporaries; and thus his theory presents us with the singular anomaly of absolute truth deduced, as a mathematical result, from a hybrid datum of ancient imagination intertangled with modern inacumen. Laplace’s real strength lay, in fact, in an almost miraculous mathematical instinct:— on this he relied; and in no instance did it fail or deceive him:—in the case of the Nebular Cosmogony, it led him, blindfolded, through a labyrinth of Error, into one of the most luminous and stupendous temples of Truth.

172

Let us now fancy,—merely fancy—a for the moment, that the ring first thrown off by the Sun—that is to say, the ring whose breakingup constituted Neptune—did not, in fact, break up until the throwing-off of the ring out of which Uranus arose; that this latter ring, again, remained perfect until the discharge of that out of which sprang Saturn; that this latter, again, remained entire until the dis¬ charge of that from which originated Jupiter—and so on. Let us imagine, in a word, that no dissolution occurred among the rings until the final rejection of that which gave birth to Mercury. We thus paint to the eye of the mind a series of coexistent concentric circles; and looking as well at them as at the processes by which, according to Laplace’s hypothesis, they were constructed, we perceive at once a very singular analogy with the atomic strata and the process of the

a. P fancy, / HW fancy,-—merely fancy— •7o-

THE UNIVERSE. original radiation3 as I have described it. Is it impossible that, on measuring the forces, respectively, by which each successive planetary circle was thrown off—that is to say, on measuring the successive excesses of rotation over gravitation which occasioned the successive discharges—we should find the analogy in question more decided¬ ly confirmed? Is it improbable that we should discover these forces to have varied as in the original radiation—proportionally withf the squares of the distances ? Our solar system, consisting, in chief, of one sun, with seventeenc planets certainly, and possibly a few more, revolving about it at vari¬ ous distances, and attended by seventeen moons assuredly, but very probably by several others—is now to be considered as an example of the innumerable agglomerations which proceeded to take place throughout the Universal Sphere of atoms on withdrawal of the Di¬ vine Volition. I mean to say that our solar system is to be understood as affording a generic instance of these agglomerations, or, more correcdy, of the ulterior conditions at which they arrived. If we keep our attention fixed on the idea of the utmost possible Relation as the Omnip¬ otent design, and on the precautions taken to accomplish it through difference of form, among the original atoms, and particular inequi¬ distance, we shall find it impossible to suppose for a moment that even any two of the incipient agglomerations reached precisely the same result in the end. We shall rather be inclined to think that no two stel¬ lar bodies in the Universe—whether suns, planets or moons—are particularly, while all are generally, similar. Still less, then, can we imag¬ ine any two assemblages of such bodies—any two “systems”—as having more than a general resemblance.* Our telescopes, at this point, thor¬ oughly confirm our deductions. Taking our own solar system, then, as merely a loose or general type of all, we have so far proceeded in our subject as to survey the Universe of Starsd under the aspect of a spherical space, throughout which, dispersed with merely general equability, exist a number of but generally similar syterns.

*It is not impossible that some unlooked-for optical improvement may disclose to us, among innumerable varieties of systems, a luminous sun, encircled by luminous and nonluminous rings, within and without and between which, revolve luminous and non-luminous planets, attended by moons having moons—and even these latter again having moons. a. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation b. P to [italics] / NM, HW with [italics] [We follow HW.] c. P sixteen / NM, HW seventeen d. P Universe / HW Universe of Stars

• 7 1 •

EUREKA. 174

Let us now, expanding our conceptions, look upon each of these systems as in itself an atom; which in fact it is, when we consider it as but one of the countless myriads of systems which constitute the Universe. Regarding all, then, as but colossal atoms, each with the same ineradicable tendency to Unity which characterizes the actual atoms of which it consists—we enter at once aa new order of aggrega¬ tions. The smaller systems, in the vicinity of a larger one, would, inev¬ itably, be drawn into still closer vicinity. A thousand would assemble here; a million there—perhaps here, again, even a billion—leaving, thus, immeasurable vacancies in space. And if, now, it be demanded why, in the case of these systems—of these merely Titanic atoms—I speak, simply, of an “assemblage,” and not, as in the case of the actu¬ al atoms, of a more or less consolidated agglomeration:—if it be asked, for instance, why I do not carry what I suggest to its legitimate con¬ clusion, and describe, at once, these assemblages of system-atoms as rushing to consolidation in spheres—as each becoming condensed into one magnificent sun—my reply is that (le^Aovxa xauxa—I am but pausing, for a moment, on the awful threshold of the Future. For the present, calling these assemblages “clusters,” we see them in the incipient stages of their consolidation. Their absolute consolidation is to come.

175

We have now reached a point from which we behold the Universe of Stars'3 as a spherical space, interspersed, unequably, with clusters. It will be noticed that I here prefer the adverb “unequably” to the phrase “with a merely general equability,” employed before. It is evident, in fact, that the equability of distribution will diminish in the ratio of the agglomerative processes—that is to say, as the things distributed diminish in number. Thus the increase of zwequability— an increase which must continue until, sooner or later, an epoch will arrive at which the largest agglomeration will absorb all the others— should be viewed as, simply, a corroborative indication of the tendency to One.

176

And here, at length, it seems proper to inquire whether the ascer¬ tained facts of Astronomy confirm the general arrangement which I have thus, deductively, assigned to the Heavens. Thoroughly, they do. Telescopic observation, guided by the laws of perspective, enables

a. P once upon a / HW once a b. P Universe / HW Universe of Stars

•72-

THE UNIVERSE. us to understand that the perceptible Universe exists as a roughly sphericala cluster of clusters, irregularly disposed. 177

The clusters of which this Universal “cluster of clusters” consists, are merely what we have been in the practice of designating “neb¬ ula”—and, of these “nebulae,” one is of paramount interest to man¬ kind. I allude to the Galaxy, or Milky Way. This interests us, first and most obviously, on account of its great superiority in apparent size, not only to any one other cluster in the firmament, but to all the other clusters taken together. The largest of these latter occupies a mere point, comparatively, and is distinctly seen only with the aid of a telescope. The Galaxy sweeps throughout the Heaven and is brilliandy visible to the naked eye. But it interests man chiefly, although less immediately, on account of its being his home; the home of the Earth on which he exists; the home of the Sun about which this Earth revolves; the home of that “system” of orbs of which the Sun is the centre and primary—the Earth one of seventeen15 secondaries, or planets—the Moon one of seventeen tertiaries, or satellites. The Galaxy, let me repeat, is but one of the clusters which I have been describing—but one of the mis-called “nebulae” revealed to us—by the telescope alone, sometimes—as faint hazy spots in various quar¬ ters of the sky. We have no reason to suppose the Milky Way really more extensive than the least of these “nebulae.” Its vast superiority in size is but an apparent superiority arising from our position in regard to it—that is to say, from our position in its midst. However strange the assertion may at first appear to those unversed in Astron¬ omy, still the astronomer himself has no hesitation in asserting that we are in the midst of that inconceivable host of stars—of suns—of systems—which constitute the Galaxy. Moreover, not only have we— not only has our Sun a right to claim the Galaxy as its own especial cluster, but, with slight reservation, it may be said that all the distinctly visible stars of the firmament—all the stars visible to the naked eye— have equally a right to claim it as their own.

178

There has been a great deal of misconception in respect to the shape of the Galaxy; which, in nearly all our astronomical treatises, is said to resemble that of a capital Y. The cluster in question has, in reality, a certain general—very general resemblance to the planet Saturn, with its encompassing triple ring. Instead of the solid orb

a. P a cluster [italics] / HW a roughly spherical cluster [italics] [We follow HW.] b. P sixteen / NM, HW seventeen

•73-

EUREKA. of that planet, however, we must picture to ourselves a lenticular star-island, or collection of stars; our Sun lying excentrically—near the shore of the island—on that side of it which is nearest the con¬ stellation of the Cross and farthest from that of Cassiopeia. The sur¬ rounding ring, where it approaches our position, has in it a longi¬ tudinal gash, which does, in fact, cause the ring, in our vicinity, to assume, loosely, the appearance of a capital Y. 179

We must not fall into the error, however, of conceiving the some¬ what indefinite girdle as at all remote, comparatively speaking, from the also indefinite lenticular cluster which it surrounds; and thus, for mere purpose of explanation, we may speak of our Sun as actu¬ ally situated at that point of the Y where its three component lines unite; and, conceiving this letter to be of a certain solidity—of a certain thickness, very trivial in comparison with its length—we may even speak of our position as in the middle of this thickness. Fancy¬ ing ourselves thus placed, we shall no longer find difficulty in ac¬ counting for the phaenomena presented—which are perspective altogether. When we look upward or downward—that is to say, when we cast our eyes in the direction of the letter’s thickness—we look through fewer stars than when we cast them in the direction of its length, or along either of the three component lines. Of course, in the former case, the stars appear scattered—in the latter, crowded.— To reverse this explanation:—An inhabitant of the Earth, when look¬ ing, as we commonly express ourselves, at the Galaxy, is then behold¬ ing it in some of the directions of its length—is looking alongthe lines of the Y—but when, looking out into the general Heaven, he turns his eyes from the Galaxy, he is then surveying it in the direction of the letter’s thickness; and on this account the stars seem to him scat¬ tered; while, in fact, they are as close together, on an average, as in the mass of the cluster. No consideration could be better adapted to convey an idea of this cluster’s stupendous extent.

180

If, with a telescope of high space-pentrating power, we carefully inspect the firmament, we shall become aware of a belt of clusters— of what we have hitherto called-“nebulae”—a band, of varying breadth, stretching from horizon to horizon, at right angles to the general course of the Milky Way. This band is the ultimate cluster of clusters. This belt is The Universe of Stars* Our Galaxy is but one, and perhaps

a. P The Universe [italics] / HW The Universe of Stars [italics] [We follow HW.]

• 74-

THE UNIVERSE. one of the most inconsiderable, of the clusters which go to the con¬ stitution of this ultimate, Universal belt or band. The appearance of this cluster of clusters, to our eyes, as a belt or band, is altogether a perspective phaenomenon of the same character as that which causes us to behold our own individual and roughly-spherical cluster, the Galaxy, under guise also of a belt, traversing the Heavens at right angles to the Universal one. The shape of the all-inclusive cluster is, of course generally, that of each individual cluster which it includes. Just as the scattered stars which, on looking from the Galaxy, we see in the general sky, are, in fact, but a portion of that Galaxy itself, and as closely intermingled with it as any of the telescopic points in what seems the densest portion of its mass—so are the scattered “nebula;” which, on casting our eyes from the Universal belt, we perceive at all points of the firmament—so, I say, are these scattered “nebulae” to be understood as only perspectively scattered, and as but a portiona of the one supreme and Universal sphere. 181

No astronomical fallacy is more untenable, and none has been more pertinaciously adhered to, than that of the absolute illimitation of the Universe of Stars. The reasons for limitation, as I have already assigned them, a priori, seem to me unanswerable; but, not to speak of these, observation assures us that there is, in numerous directions around us, certainly, if not in all, a positive limit—or, at the very least, affords us no basis whatever for thinking otherwise. Were the succes¬ sion of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy—since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.b The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our tele¬ scopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all. That this may be so, who shall venture to deny? I maintain, simply, that we have not even the shad¬ ow of a reason for believing that it is so.

182

When speaking of the vulgar propensity to regard all bodies on the Earth as tending merely to the Earth’s centre, I observed that,

a. P part and parcel / HW but a portion b. P since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star, [ital¬ ics] / HW since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. [Rom. See H31, note a. We follow HW.]

•75-

EUREKA. “with certain exceptions to be specified hereafter, every body on the Earth tendsa not only to the Earth’s centre, but in every conceivable direction besides.”* The “exceptions” refer to those frequent gaps in the Heavens, where our utmost scrutiny can detect not only no stellar bodies, but no indications of their existence:—where yawn¬ ing chasms, blacker than Erebus, seem to afford us glimpses, through the boundary walls of the Universe of Stars, into the illimitable Uni¬ verse of Vacancy, beyond. Now as any body, existing on the Earth, chances to pass, either through its own movement or the Earth’s, into a line with any one of these voids, or cosmical abysses, it clearly is no longer attracted in the direction of that void, and for the moment, consequently, is “heavier” than at any period, either after or before. Independently of the consideration of these voids, however, and looking only at the generally unequable distribution of the stars, we see that the absolute tendency of bodies on the Earth to the Earth’s centre, is in a state of perpetual variation. 183

We comprehend, then, the insulation of our Universe. We perceive the isolation of that—of all that which we grasp with the senses. We know that there exists one cluster of clustersc—a collection around which, on all sides, extend the immeasurable wildernesses of a Space to all human perception untenanted. But because ond the confines of this Universe of Stars we are compelled to pause, through want of far¬ ther evidence from the senses, is it right to conclude that, in fact, there is no material point beyond that which we have thus been permitted to attain? Have we, or have we not, an analogical right to the inference that this perceptible Universe—that this cluster of clus¬ ters—is but one of a series of clusters of clusters, the rest of which are invisible through distance—through the diffusion of their light be¬ ing so excessive, ere it reaches us, as not to produce upon our reti-

*Page 3ib. a. P tended / NM, HW tends b. P*Page 62 / O, NM, HW *Page 40 [Poe’s numbers refer to the pages on which related ma¬ terial appears. Page 62 of P contains paragraphs 116, 117, and part of 118, which deal with material similar to what he argues in K 182. But Poe realized that that reference was not the one he had been looking for and corrected himself in O, NM, and HW because on page 40, in ^64, the same passage appears, together with a promise to say more about it later. Our edition refers to the page in our book on which K64 appears.] c. P cluster of clusters [italics] / HW cluster of clusters [Rom. See f 31, note a. We follow HW.] d. P upon / HW on

•76-

THE UNIVERSE. naea a light-impression—or from there being no such emanation as light at all, in thoseb unspeakably distant worlds—or, lastly, from the mere interval being so vast, that the electric tidings of their presence in Space, have not yet—through the lapsing myriads of years—been enabled to traverse that interval? 184

Have we any right to inferences—have we any ground whatever for visions such as these? If we have a right to them in any degree, we have a right to their infinite extension.

185

The human brain has obviously a leaning to the “Infinite, ” and fondles the phantom of the idea. It seems to long with a passionate fervor for this impossible conception, with the hope of intellectual¬ ly believing it when conceived. What is general among the whole race of Man, of course no individual of that race can be warranted in considering abnormal; nevertheless, there may be a class of superi¬ or intelligences, to whom the human bias alluded to may wear all the character of monomania.

186

My question, however, remains unanswered:—Have we any right to infer—let us say, rather, to imagine—an interminable succession of the “clusters of clusters,” or of “Universes” more or less similar?

187

I reply that the “right,” in a case such as this, depends absolutely onc the hardihood of that imagination which ventures to claim the right. Let me declare, only, that, as an individual, I myself feel im¬ pelled to the fancy—without daring to call it more—that there does exist a limitless succession of Universes, more or less similar to that of which we have cognizance—to that of which alone we shall ever have cognizance—at the very least until the return of our own particular Universe into Unity. If such clusters of clusters exist, however—and they do—it is abundandy clear that, having had no part in our origin, they have no portion in our laws. They neither attract us, nor we them. Their material—their spirit is not ours—is not that which obtains in any part of our Universe. They cand not impress our senses or our souls. Among them and us—considering all, for the moment, collec¬ tively—there are no influences in common. Each exists apart and in¬ dependently, in the bosom of its proper and particular God.

a. P retinas / NM, / HW retinae [The Putnam Eureka always prints ae as a digraph. In this hand¬ written correction, Poe did not write the “a” and “e” together.] b. P these / HW those c. P upon / HW on d. P could / HW can

•77-

EUREKA. 188

In the conduct of this Discourse, I am aiming less at physical than at metaphysical order. The clearness with which even material phaenomena are presented to the understanding, depends very little, I have long since learned to perceive, upon a merely natural, and al¬ most altogether upon a moral, arrangement. If then I seem to step somewhat too discursively from point to point of my topic, let me suggest that I do so in the hope of thus the better keeping unbro¬ ken that chain of graduated impression by which alone the intellect of Man can expect to encompass the grandeurs of which I speak, and, in their majestic totality, to comprehend them.

189

So far, our attention has been directed, almost exclusively, to a gen¬ eral and relative grouping of the stellar bodies in space. Of specifica¬ tion there has been little; and whatever ideas of quantity have been conveyed—that is to say, of number, magnitude, and distance—have been conveyed incidentally and byway of preparation for more defini¬ tive conceptions. These latter let us now attempt to entertain.

190

Our solar system, as has been already mentioned, consists, in chief, of one sun and seventeen3 planets certainly, but in all probability a few others, revolving around it as a centre, and attended by seven¬ teen moons of which we know, with possibly several more of which as yet we know nothing. These various bodies are not true spheres, but oblate spheroids—spheres flattened at the poles of the imaginary axes about which they rotate:—the flattening being a consequence of the rotation. Neither is the Sun absolutely the centre of the sys¬ tem; for this Sun itself, with all the planets, revolves about a perpetu¬ ally shifting point of space, which is the system’s general centre of gravity. Neither are we to consider the paths through which these different spheroids move—the moons about the planets, the plan¬ ets about the Sun, or the Sun about the common centre—as circles in an accurate sense. They are, in fact, ellipses—one of the foci being the point about which the revolution is made. An ellipse is a curve, returning into itself, one of whose diameters is longer than the other. In the longer diameter are two points, equidistant from the middle of the line, and so situated otherwise that if, from each of them a straight line be drawn to any one point of the curve, the two lines, taken to¬ gether, will be equal to the longer diameter itself. Now let us conceive such an ellipse. At one of the points mentioned, which are the foci,

a. P sixteen / NM, HW seventeen

•78-

THE UNIVERSE. let us fasten an orange. By an elastic thread let us connect this orange with a pea; and let us place this latter on the circumference of the ellipse. Let us now move the pea continuously around the orange— keeping always on the circumference of the ellipse. The elastic thread, which, of course, varies in length as we move the pea, will form what in geometry is called a radius vector. Now, if the orange be understood as the Sun, and the pea as a planet revolving about it, then the revo¬ lution should be made at such a rate—with a velocity so varying—that the radius vector may pass over equal areas of space in equal times. The progress of the pea should be—in other words the progress of the plan¬ et is, of course,—slow in proportion to its distance from the Sun— swift in proportion to its proximity. Those planets, moreover, move the more slowly which are the farther from the Sun; the squares of their peiiods of revolution having the same proportion to each other, as have to each other the cubes of their mean distances from the Sun. 191

The wonderfully complex laws of revolution here described, how¬ ever, are not to be understood as obtaining in our system alone. They everywhere prevail where Attraction prevails. They control the Universe of Stars* Every shining speck in the firmament is, no doubt, a lumi¬ nous sun, resembling our own, at least in its general features, and having in attendance upon it a greater or less number of planets, greater or less, whose still lingering luminosity is not sufficient to render them visible to us at so vast a distance, but which, neverthe¬ less, revolve, moon-attended, about their starry centres, in obedience to the principles just detailed—in obedience to the three omniprevalent laws of revolution—the three immortal laws guessed by the imag¬ inative Kepler, and but subsequently demonstrated and accounted for by the patient and mathematical Newton. Among a tribe of phi¬ losophers who pride themselves excessively upon matter-of-fact, it is far too fashionable to sneer at all speculation under the comprehen¬ sive sobriquet, “guess-work.” The point to be considered is, who guesses. In guessing with Plato, we spend our time to better purpose, now and then, than in hearkening to a demonstration by Alcmaeon.

192

In many works on Astronomy I find it distinctly stated that the laws of Kepler are the basis of the great principle, Gravitation. This idea must have arisen from the fact that the suggestion of these laws by Kepler, and his proving them a posteriori to have an actual existence,

a. P Universe [italics] / HW Universe of Stars [italics] [We follow HW.]

•79-

EUREKA. led Newton to account for them by the hypothesis of Gravitation, and, finally, to demonstrate them a priori, as necessary consequences of the hypothetical principle. Thus so far from the laws of Kepler being the basis of Gravity, Gravity is the basis of these laws—as it is, indeed, of all the laws of the material Universe which are not refer¬ able to Repulsion alone. 193

The mean distance of the Earth from the Moon—that is to say, from the heavenly body in our closest vicinity—is

237,000

the planet nearest the Sun, is distant from him Venus, the next, revolves at a distance of

68

37

miles. Mercury,

millions of miles.

millions:—the Earth,

which comes next, at a distance of 95 millions:—Mars, then, at a dis¬ tance of

144

millions. Now come the nine3 Asteroids (Ceres, Juno,

Vesta, Pallas, Astraea, Flora, Iris, Hebe and . . .)b at an average distance of about

250

then Saturn,

millions. Then we have Jupiter, distant 900

millions; then Uranus,

19

490

millions;

hundred millions; final¬

ly Neptune, lately discovered, and revolving at a distance, say of 28^ hundred millions. Leaving Neptune out of the account—of which as yet we know litde accurately and which is, possibly, one of a system of Asteroids—it will be seen that, within certain limits, there exists an order of interval among the planets. Speaking loosely, we may say that each outer planet is twice as far from the Sun as is the next inner one. May not the order here mentioned—may not the law of Bode—be deduced from consideration of the analogy suggested by me as having place between the solar discharge of rings and the mode of the atomic radiation?c 194

The numbers hurriedly mentioned in this summary of distance, it is folly to attempt comprehending, unless in the light of abstract ar¬ ithmetical facts. They are not practically tangible ones. They convey no precise ideas. I have stated that Neptune, the planet farthest from the Sun, revolves about him at a distance of

28

hundred millions of

miles. So far good:—I have stated a mathematical fact; and, without [*] O Another just discovered. [This memo to Poe himself appears at the bottom of page 106 in the O copy, so we put the note after the last word on the page. But it obvious¬ ly refers to the list of asteroids earlier in the paragraph; see variant a above, where Poe changed “eight” to “nine.”] a. P eight / NM, HW nine b. P and Hebe) / HW actually reads: “Iris, and Hebe) and” [Poe deleted the first “and” then added the second. He seems to have left his correction incomplete, because “Iris, Hebe) and” makes no sense; it is Poe’s error. Other editors give “Hebe and . . .)” meaning “and a new aster¬ oid yet to be named.” That makes sense and is likely what Poe intended.] c. P irradiation [italics] / NM, HW radiation [italics] [We follow HW.]

• 8 O •

THE UNIVERSE. comprehending it in the least, we may put it to use—mathematically. But in mentioning, even, that the Moon revolves about the Earth at the comparatively trifling distance of 237,000 miles, I entertained no expectation of giving any one to understand—to know—to feel— how far from the Earth the Moon actually is. 237,000 miles! There are, perhaps, few of my readers who have not crossed the Atlantic ocean; yet how many of them have a distinct idea of even the 3,000 miles intervening between shore and shore? I doubt, indeed, wheth¬ er the man lives who can force into his brain the most remote con¬ ception of the interval between one milestone and its next neigh¬ bor upon the turnpike. We are in some measure aided, however, in our consideration of distance, by combining this consideration with the kindred one of velocity. Sound passes through 1100 feet of space in a second of time. Now were it possible for an inhabitant of the Earth to see the flash of a cannon discharged in the Moon, and to hear the report, he would have to wait, after perceiving the former, more than 13 entire days and nights before getting any intimation of the latter. 195

However feeble be the impression, even thus conveyed, of the Moon’s real distance from the Earth, it will, nevertheless, effect a good object in enabling us more clearly to see the futility of attempt¬ ing to grasp such intervals as that of the 28 hundred millions of miles between our Sun and Neptune; or even that of the 95 millions be¬ tween the Sun and the Earth we inhabit. A cannon-ball, flying at the greatest velocity with which such a ball has ever been known to fly, could not traverse the latter interval in less than 20 years; while for the former it would require 590.

196

Our Moon’s real diameter is 2160 miles; yet she is comparatively so trifling an object that it would take nearly 50 such orbs to com¬ pose one as great as the Earth.

197

The diameter of our own globe is 7912 miles—but from the enun¬ ciation of these numbers what positive idea do we derive?

198

If we ascend an ordinary mountain and look around us from its summit, we behold a landscape stretching, say 40 miles, in every di¬ rection; forming a circle 250 miles in circumference; and including an area of 5000 square miles. The extent of such a prospect, on ac¬ count of the successiveness with which its portions necessarily present themselves to view, can be only very feebly and very partially appre¬ ciated:—yet the entire panorama would comprehend no more than

• 8 1 •

EUREKA. one 40,000th part of the mere surface of our globe. Were this pan¬ orama, then, to be succeeded, after the lapse of an hour, by another of equal extent; this again by a third, after the lapse of another hour; this again by a fourth after lapse of another hour—and so on, until the scenery of the whole Earth were exhausted; and were we to be engaged in examining these various panoramas for twelve hours of every day; we should nevertheless, be 9 years and 48 days in complet¬ ing the general survey. 199

But if the mere surface of the Earth eludes the grasp of the imag¬ ination, what are we to think of its cubical contents? It embraces a mass of matter equal in weight to at least 2 sextillions, 200 quintillions of tons. Let us suppose it in a state of quiescence; and now let us endeavor to conceive a mechanical force sufficient to set it in motion! Not the strength of all the myriads of beings whom we may conclude to inhabit the planetary worlds of our system—not the combined physical strength of all these beings—even admitting all to be more powerful than man—would avail to stir the ponderous mass a single inch from its position.

200

What are we to understand, then, of the force, which under simi¬ lar circumstances, would be required to move the largest of our plan¬ ets, Jupiter? This is 86,000 miles in diameter, and would include with¬ in its surface3 more than a thousand orbs of the magnitude of our own. Yet this stupendous body is actually flying around the Sun at the rate of 29,000 miles an hour—that is to say, with a velocity 40 times greater than that of a cannon-ball! The thought of such a phaenomenon cannot well be said to startle the mind:—it palsies and appals it. Not unfrequently we task our imagination in picturing the capacities of an angel. Let us fancy such a being at a distance of some hundred miles from Jupiter—a close eye-witness of this planet as it speeds on its annual revolution. Now can we, I demand, fashion for ourselves any conception so distinct of this ideal being’s spiritual exaltation, as that involved in the supposition that, even by this immeasurable mass of matter, whirled immediately before his eyes, with a velocity so unutterable, he—an angel—angelic though he be—is not at once struck into nothingness and overwhelmed?

201

At this point, however, it seems proper to suggest that, in fact, we have been speaking of comparative trifles. Our Sun, the central and

a. P periphery / HW surface

•82-

THE UNIVERSE. controlling orb of the system to which Jupiter belongs, is not only greater than Jupiter, but greater by far than all the planets of the system taken together. This fact is an essential condition, indeed, of the stability of the system itself. The diameter of Jupiter has been mentioned:—it is 86,000 miles:—that of the Sun is 882,000 miles. An inhabitant of the latter, travelling 90 miles a day, would be more than 80 years in going round itsa circumference. It occupies a cubi¬ cal space of 681 quadrillions, 472 trillions of miles. The Moon, as has been stated, revolves about the Earth at a distance of 237,000 miles—in an orbit, consequently, of nearly a million and a half. Now, were the Sun placed upon the Earth, centre over centre, the body of the former would extend, in every direction, not only to the line of the Moon’s orbit, buy beyond it, a distance of 200,000 miles. 202

And here, once again, let me suggest that, in fact, we have stillbeen speaking of comparative trifles. The distance of the planet Neptune from the Sun has been stated:—it is 28 hundred millions of miles; itsb orbit, therefore, is about 17 billions. Let this be borne in mind while we glance at some one of the brightest stars. Between this and the star of our system, (the Sun,) there is a gulf of space, to convey any idea of which we should need the tongue of an archangel. From oMrsystem, then, and from our Sun, or star, the star at which we sup¬ pose ourselves glancing is a thing altogether apart:—still, for the moment, let us imagine it placed upon our Sun, centre over centre, as we just now imagined this Sun itself placed upon the Earth. Let us now conceive the particular star we have in mind, extending, in every direction, beyond the orbit of Mercury—of Venus—of the Earth:—still on, beyond the orbit of Mars—of the Asteroids—of Jupiter—of Saturnc—of Uranus—until, finally, we fancy it filling the circle—17 billions of miles in circumference—which is described by the revolution of Leverrier’s planet. When we have conceived all this, we shall have entertained no extravagant conception. There is the very best reason for believing that many of the stars are even far larger than the one we have imagined. I mean to say that we have the very best empiricalbasis for such belief:—and, in looking back at the orig¬ inal, atomic arrangements for diversity, which have been assumed as a part of the Divine plan in the constitution of the Universe, we shall

a. P round a great circle of its / NM, HW round its b. P miles; the circumference of its / HW miles; its c. P Mars—of Jupiter— / HW Mars—of the Asteroids—ofJupiter—of Saturn—

•83-

EUREKA. be enabled easily to understand, and to credit, the existence of even far vaster disproportions in stellar size than any to which I have hith¬ erto alluded. The largest orbs, of course, we must expect to find rolling through the widest vacancies of Space. 203

I remarked, just now, that to convey an idea of the interval between our Sun and any one of the other stars, we should require the elo¬ quence of an archangel. In so saying, I should not be accused of exaggeration; for, in simple truth, these are topics on which it is scarcely possible to exaggerate. But let us bring the matter more distinctly before the eye of the mind.

204

In the first place, we may get a general, relative conception of the interval referred to, by comparing it with the inter-planetary spaces. If, for example, we suppose the Earth, which is, in reality, 95 millions of miles from the Sun, to be only one foot from that luminary; then Neptune would be 40 feet distant; and the star Alpha Lyrce, at the very least, 159.

205

Now I presume that, in the termination of my last sentence, few of my readers have noticed anything especially objectionable— particularly wrong. I said that the distance of the Earth from the Sun being taken at one foot, the distance of Neptune would be 40 feet, and that of Alpha Lyrae, 159. The proportion between one foot and 159 has appeared, perhaps, to convey a sufficiently definite im¬ pression of the proportion between the two intervals—that of the Earth from the Sun and that of Alpha Lyrae from the same lumi¬ nary. But my account of the matter should, in reality, have run thus:—The distance of the Earth from the Sun being taken at one foot, the distance of Neptune would be 40 feet, and that of Alpha Lyrae, 159-miles:—that is to say, I had assigned to Alpha Lyrae, in my first statement of the case, only the 5280th part of that dis¬ tance which is the least distance possible at which it can actually lie.

206

To proceed:—However distant a mere planet is, yet when we look at it through a telescope, we see it under a certain form—of a cer¬ tain appreciable size. Now I have already hinted at the probable bulk of many of the stars; nevertheless, when we view any one of them, even through the most powerful telescope, it is found to present us with no form, and consequently with no magnitude whatever. We see it as a point and nothing more.

207

Again;—Let us suppose ourselves walking, at night, on a highway. In a field on one side of the road, is a line of tall objects, say trees,

•84.

THE UNIVERSE. the figures of which are distinctly defined against the background of the sky. This line of objects extends at right angles to the road, and from the road to the horizon. Now, as we proceed along the road, we see these objects changing their positions, respectively, in relation to a certain fixed point in that portion of the firmament which forms the background of the view. Let us suppose this fixed point—sufficiendy fixed for our purpose—to be the rising moon. We become aware, at once, that while the tree nearest us so far alters its position in respect to the moon, as to seem flying behind us, the tree in the extreme distance has scarcely changed at all its relative posi¬ tion with the satellite. We then go on to perceive that the farther the objects are from us, the less they alter their positions; and the con¬ verse. Then we begin, unwittingly, to estimate the distances of indi¬ vidual trees by the degrees in which they evince the relative alter¬ ation. Finally, we come to understand how it might be possible to ascertain the actual distance of any given tree in the line, by using the amount of relative alteration as a basis in a simple geometrical problem. Now this relative alteration is what we call “parallax;” and by parallax we calculate the distances of the heavenly bodies. Apply¬ ing the principle to the trees in question, we should, of course, be very much at a loss to comprehend the distance of that tree, which, however far we proceeded along the road, should evince no paral¬ lax at all. This, in the case described, is a thing impossible; but im¬ possible only because all distances on our Earth are trivial indeed:— in comparison with the vast cosmical quantities, we may speak of 208

them as absolutely nothing. Now, let us suppose the star Alpha Lyrae directly overhead; and let us imagine that, instead of standing on the Earth, we stand at one end of a straight road stretching through Space to a distance equal¬ ling the diameter of the Earth’s orbit—that is to say, to a distance of 190 millions of miles. Having observed, by means of the most delicate micrometrical instruments, the exact position of the star, let us now pass along this inconceivable road, until we reach its other extrem¬ ity. Now, once again, let us look at the star. It is precisely where we left it. Our instruments, however delicate, assure us that its relative po¬ sition is absolutely—is identically the same as at the commencement of our unutterable journey. No parallax—none whatever—has been

209

found. The fact is, that, in regard to the distance of the fixed stars—of

•85-

EUREKA. any one of the myriads of suns glistening on the farther side of that awful chasm which separates our system from its brothers in the clus¬ ter to which it belongs—astronomical science, until very lately, could speak only with a negative certainty. Assuming the brightest as the nearest, we could say, even of them, only that there is a certain incom¬ prehensible distance on the hither side of which they cannot be:— how far they are beyond it we had in no case been able to ascertain. We perceived, for example, that Alpha Lyrae cannot be nearer to us than tg trillions, 200 billions of miles; but, for all we knew, and in¬ deed for all we now know, it may be distant from us the square, or the cube, or any other power of the number mentioned. By dint, however, of wonderfully minute and cautious observations, contin¬ ued, with novel instruments, for many laborious years, Bessel, not long ago deceased, has lately succeeded in determining the distance of six or seven stars; among others, that of the star numbered 61 in the constellation of the Swan. The distance in this latter instance ascer¬ tained, is 670,000 times that of the Sun; which last it will be remem¬ bered, is 95 millions of miles. The star 61 Cygni, then, is nearly 61 trillions of miles from us—or more than three times the distance assigned, as the least possible, for Alpha Lyrae. 210

In attempting to appreciate this interval by the aid of any consid¬ erations of velocity, as we did in endeavoring to estimate the distance of the moon, we must leave out of sight, altogether, such nothings as the speed of a cannon-ball, or of sound. Light, however, according to the latest calculations of Struve, proceeds at the rate of 167,000 miles in a second. Thought itself cannot pass through this interval more speedily—if, indeed, thought can traverse it at all. Yet, in com¬ ing from 61 Cygni to us, even at this inconceivable rate, light occu¬ pies more than ten years; and, consequentiy, were the star this moment blotted out from the Universe, still, for ten years, would it continue to sparkle on, undimmed in its paradoxical glory.

211

Keeping now in mind whatever feeble conception we may have at¬ tained of the interval between our Sun and 61 Cygni, let us remem¬ ber that this interval, however unutterably vast, we are permitted to consider as but the average interval among the countless host of stars composing that cluster, or “nebula,” to which our system, as well as that of 61 Cygni, belongs. I have, in fact, stated the case with great moderation:—we have excellent reason for believing 61 Cygni to be one of the nearest stars, and thus for concluding, at least for the present, •86-

THE UNIVERSE. that its distance from us is less than the average distance between star and star in the magnificent cluster of the Milky Way. 212

And here, once again and finally, it seems proper to suggest that even as yet we have been speaking of trifles. Ceasing to wonder at the space between star and star in our own or in any particular clus¬ ter, let us rather turn our thoughts to the intervals between cluster and cluster, in the all comprehensive cluster of the Universe.

213

I have already said that light proceeds at the rate of 167,000 miles in a second—that is, about 10 millions of miles in a minute, or about 600 millions of miles in an hour:—yet so far removed from us are some of the “nebulae” that even light, speeding with this velocity, could not and does not reach us, from those mysterious regions, in less than 3 millions of years. This calculation, moreover, is made by the elder Herschell [sfc], and in reference merely to those comparatively proximate clusters within the scope of his own telescope. There are “nebulae,” however, which, through the magical tube of Lord Rosse, are this instant whispering in our ears the secrets of a million of ages by-gone. In a word, the events which we behold now—at this mo¬ ment—in those worlds—are the identical events which interested their inhabitants ten hundred thousand centuries ago. In intervals—in distances such as this suggestion forces upon the soul—rather than upon the mind—we find, at length, a fitting climax to all hitherto frivolous considerations of quantity.

214

Our fancies thus occupied with the cosmical distances, let us take the opportunity of referring to the difficulty which we have so often experienced, while pursuing the beaten path of astronomical reflec¬ tion, in accounting for the immeasurable voids alluded to—in com¬ prehending why chasms so totally unoccupied and therefore appar¬ ently so needless, have been made to intervene between star and star—between cluster and cluster—in understanding, to be brief, a sufficient reason for the Titanic scale, in respect of mere Space, on which the Universe of Stars3 is seen to be constructed. A rational cause for the phsenomenon, I maintain that Astronomy has palpa¬ bly failed to assign:—but the considerations through which, in this Essay, we have proceeded step by step, enable us clearly and imme¬ diately to perceive that Space and Duration are one. That the Universe of Stars13 might endure throughout an sera at all commensurate with

a. P Universe / HW Universe of Stars b. P Universe / HW Universe of Stars

•87-

EUREKA. the grandeur of its component material portions and with the high majesty of its spiritual purposes, it was necessary that the original atom¬ ic diffusion be made to so inconceivable an extent as to be only not infinite. It was required, in a word, that the stars should be gathered into visibility from invisible nebulosity—proceed from visibility3 to consolidation—and so grow grey in giving birth and death to unspeak¬ ably numerous and complex variations of vitalic development:—it was required that the stars should do all this—should have time thoroughly to accomplish all these Divine purposes—during the period in which all things were effecting their return into Unity with a velocity accumu¬ lating in the inverse proportion of the squares of the distances at which lay the inevitable End. 215

Throughout all this we have no difficulty in understanding the absolute accuracy of the Divine adaptation. The density of the stars, respectively, proceeds, of course, as their condensation diminishes; condensation and heterogeneity keep pace with each other; through the latter, which is the index of the former, we estimate the vitalic and spiritual development. Thus, in the density of the globes, we have the measure in which their purposes are fulfilled. As density proceeds—as the divine intentions are accomplished—as less and still less remains to 6c accomplished—so—in the same ratio—should we expect to find an acceleration of the End:—and thus the philo¬ sophical mind will easily comprehend that the Divine designs in con¬ stituting the stars, advance mathematically to their fulfilment:—and more; it will readily give the advance a mathematical expression; it will decide that this advance is inversely proportional with the squares of the distances of all created things from the starting-point and goal of their creation.

216

Not only is this Divine adaptation, however, mathematically accu¬ rate, but there is that about it which stamps it as divine, in distinction from that which is merely the work of human constructiveness. I al¬ lude to the complete mutuality of adaptation. For example; in human constructions a particular cause has a particular effect; a particular intention brings to pass a particular object; but this is all; we see no reciprocity. The effect does not re-act upon the cause; the intention does not change relations with the object. In Divine constructions the object is either design or object as we choose to regard it—and we

a. P nebulosity / NM, HW visibility

•88-

THE UNIVERSE. may take at any time a cause for an effect, or the converse—so that we can never absolutely decide which is which. 217

To give an instance:—In polar climates the human frame, to main¬ tain its animal heat, requires, for combustion in the capillary system, an abundant supply of highly azotized food, such as train-oil. But again:—in polar climates nearly the sole food afforded man is the oil of abundant seals and whales. Now, whether is oil at hand because imperatively demanded, or the only thing demanded because the only thing to be obtained? It is impossible to decide. There is an absolute reciprocity of adaptation.

218

The pleasure which we derive from any display of human ingenu¬ ity is in the ratio of the approach to this species of reciprocity. In the construction of plot, for example, in fictitious literature, we should aim at so arranging the incidents that we shall not be able to deter¬ mine, of any one of them, whether it depends from any one other or upholds it. In this sense, of course, perfection of plot3 is really, or practically, unattainable—but only because it is a finite intelligence that constructs. The plots of God are perfect. The Universe is a plot

219

of God. And now we have reached a point at which the intellect is forced, again, to struggle against its propensity for analogical inference— against its monomaniac grasping at the infinite. Moons have been seen revolving about planets; planets about stars; and the poetical instinct of humanity—its instinct of the symmetrical, even ifb the sym¬ metry be but a symmetry of surface:—this instinct, which the Soul, not only of Man but of all created beings, took up, in the beginning, from the geometrical basis of the Universal radiationc—impels us to the fancy of an endless extension of this system of cycles. Closing our eyes equally to deduction and induction, we insist upon imagining a revolution of all the orbs of the Galaxy about some gigantic globe which we take to be the central pivot of the whole. Each cluster in the great cluster of clusters is imagined, of course, to be similarly supplied and con¬ structed; while, that the “analogy” may be wanting at no point, we go on to conceive these clusters themselves, again, as revolving about some still more august sphere;—this latter, still again, with its encir¬ cling clusters, as but one of a yet more magnificent series of agglom-

a. P plot [italics] / HW plot [Rom. See I31, note a. We follow HW.] b. Pif/ HW even if c. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

•89-

EUREKA. erations, gyrating about yet another orb central to them—some orb still more unspeakably sublime—some orb, let us rather say, of infinite sublimity endlessly multiplied by the infinitely sublime. Such are the conditions, continued in perpetuity, which the voice of what some people term “analogy” calls upon the Fancy to depict and the Rea¬ son to contemplate, if possible, without becoming dissatisfied with the picture. Such, in general, are the interminable gyrations beyond gyration which we have been instructed by Philosophy to compre¬ hend and to account for—ata least in the best manner we can. Now and then, however, a philosopher proper—one whose phrenzy takes a very determinate turn—whose genius, to speak more reverentially, has a strongly-pronounced washer-womanish bias, doing every thing up by the dozen—enables us to see precisely that point out of sight, at which the revolutionary processes in question do, and of right ought to, come to an end. 220

It is hardly worth while, perhaps, even to sneer at the reveries of Fourier:b—but much has been said, latterly, of the hypothesis of Madler—that there exists, in the centre of the Galaxy, a stupendous globe about which all the systems of the cluster revolve. The period of our own, indeed, has been stated—117 million of years.

221

That our Sun has a motion in space, independently of its rotation, and revolution about the system’s centre of gravity, has long been suspected. This motion, granting it to exist, would be manifested perspectively. The stars in that firmamental region which we were leaving behind us, would, in a very long series of years, become crowd¬ ed; those in the opposite quarter, scattered. Now, by means of astro¬ nomical History, we ascertain, cloudily, that some such phenomena have occurred. On this ground it has been declared that our system is moving to a point in the heavens diametrically opposite the star Zeta Herculis:—but this inference is, perhaps, the maximum to which we have any logical right. Madler, however, has gone so far as to desig¬ nate a particular star, Alcyone in the Pleiades, as being at or about the very spot around which a general revolution is performed.

222

Now, since by “analogy” we are led, in the first instance, to these dreams, it is no more than proper that we should abide by analogy, at least in some measure, during their development; and thatc anal-

a. P for, / HW for— b. P Fourrier / W, HW Fourier c. P that / HW that [italics]

•90-

THE UNIVERSE. ogy which suggests the revolution, suggests at the same time a cen¬ tral orb about which it should be performed:—so far the astrono¬ mer was consistent. This central orb, however, should, dynamically, be greater than all the orbs, taken together, which surround it. Of these there are about 100 millions. “Why, then,” it was of course demanded, “do we not wthis vast central sun—at least equal in mass to 100 millions of such suns as ours—why do we not see it—we, es¬ pecially, who occupy the mid region of the cluster—the very locality near which, at all events, must be situated this incomparable star?” The reply was ready—“It must be non-luminous, as are our planets.” Here, then, to suit a purpose, analogy is suddenly let fall. “Not so,” it may be said—“we know that non-luminous suns actually exist.” It is true that we have reason at least for supposing so; but we have certainly no reason whatever for supposing that the non-luminous suns in question are encircled by luminous suns, while these again are surrounded by non-luminous planets:—and it is precisely all this with which Madler is called upon to find any thing analogous in the heavens—for it is precisely all this which he imagines in the case of the Galaxy. Admitting the thing to be so, we cannot help here pic¬ turing to ourselves how sad a puzzle the why it is so must prove to all 223

a priori philosophers. But granting, in the very teeth of analogy and of every thing else, the non-luminosity of the vast central orb, we may still inquire how this orb, so enormous, could fail of being rendered visible by the flood of light thrown upon it from the 100 millions of glorious suns glaring in all directions about it. Ona the urging of this question, the idea of an actually solid central sun appears, in some measure, to have been abandoned; and speculation proceeded to assert that the systems of the cluster perform their revolutions merely about an immaterial centre of gravity common to all. Here again then, to suit a purpose, analogy is let fall. The planets of our system revolve, it is true, about a common centre of gravity; but they do this in connex¬ ion with, and in consequence of, a material sun whose mass more than counterbalances the rest of the system.

224

The mathematical circle is a curve composed of an infinity of straight lines. But this idea of the circle—an idea which, in view of all ordinary geometry, is merely the mathematical, as contradistin-

a. P Upon / HW On

•91-

EUREKA. guished from the practical, idea—is, in sober fact, the practical con¬ ception which alone we have any right to entertain in regard to the majestic circle with which we have to deal, at least in fancy, when we suppose our system revolving about a point in the centre of the Galaxy. Let the most vigorous of human imaginations attempt but to take a single step towards the comprehension of a sweep so inef¬ fable! It would scarcely be paradoxical to say that a flash of lightning itself, travelhng/oret'cron3 the circumference of this unutterable cir¬ cle, would still, forever, be travelling in a straight line. That the path of our Sun in such an orbit would, to any human perception, deviate in the slightest degree from a straight line, even in a million of years, is a proposition not to be entertained:—yet we are required to believe that a curvature has become apparent during the brief period of our astronomical history—during theb mere point—during the utter nothingness of two or three thousand years. 225

It may be said that Madler has really ascertained a curvature in the direction of our system’s now well-established progress through Space. Admitting, if necessary, this fact to be in reality such, I maintain that nothing is thereby shown except the reality of this fact—the fact of a curvature. For its thorough determination, ages will be required; and, when determined, it will be found indicative of some binary or other multiple relation between our Sun and some one or more of the prox¬ imate stars. I hazard nothing^ however, in predicting, that, after the lapse of many centuries, all efforts at determining the path of our Sun through Space, will be abandoned as fruitless. This is easily conceiv¬ able when we look at the infinity of perturbation it must experience, from its perpetually-shifting relations with other orbs, in the common approach of all to the nucleus of the Galaxy.

226

But in examining other “nebulae” than that of the Milky Way—in surveying, generally, the clusters which overspread the heavens—do we or do we not find confirmation of Madler’s hypothesis? We do not. The forms of the clusters are exceedingly diverse when casual¬ ly viewed; but on close inspection, through powerful telescopes, we recognize the sphere, very distincdy, as at least the proximate form ' of all:—their constitution, in general, being at variance with the idea of revolution about a common centre.

a. P upon / HW on b. P a / HW the c. P nothing / HW nothing,

•

9 2

•

THE UNIVERSE. 227

“It is difficult,” says Sir John Herschell [sic], “to form any concep¬ tion of the dynamical state of such systems. On one hand, without a rotary motion and a centrifugal force, it is hardly possible not to regard them as in a state of progressive collapse. On the other, grant¬ ing such a motion and such a force, we find it no less difficult to reconcile their forms with the rotation of the whole system [mean¬ ing cluster] around any single axis, without which internal collision would appear to be inevitable.”

228

Some remarks lately made about the “nebulae” by Dr. Nichol, in taking quite a different view of the cosmical conditions from any taken in this Discourse—have a very peculiar applicability to the point now at issue. He says:

229

“When our greatest telescopes are brought to bear upon them, we find that those which were thought to be irregular, are not so; they approach nearer to a globe. Here is one that looked oval; but Lord Rosse’s telescope brought it into a circle.Now there occurs a very remarkable circumstance in reference to these comparatively sweep¬ ing circular masses of nebulae. We find they are not entirely circular, but the reverse; and that all around them, on every side, there are volumes of stars, stretching out apparently as if they were rushing towards a great central mass in consequence of the action of some great power. ”*

230

Were I to describe, in my own words, what must necessarily be the existing condition of each nebula,a on the hypothesis that all mat¬ ter is, as I suggest, now returning to its original Unity, I should sim¬ ply be going over, nearly verbatim, the language here employed by Dr. Nichol, without the faintest suspicion of that stupendous truth which is the key to these nebular phaenomena.

231

And here let me fortify my position still farther, by the voice of a greater than Madler—of one, moreover, to whom all the data of Madler have long been familiar things, carefully and thoroughly considered. Referring to the elaborate calculations of Argelander— the very researches which form Madler’s basis—Humboldt, whose generalizing powers have never, perhaps,b been equalled, has the following observation: *1 must be understood as denying, especially, only the revolutionary portion of Madler’s hypothesis. Of course, if no great central orb exists now in our cluster, such will exist here¬ after. Whenever exisdng, it will be merely the nucleus of the consolidation.

a. P nebula / HW nebula, b. P perhaps / NM, HW perhaps,

93-

•

EUREKA. 232

“When we regard the real, proper, or non-perspective motions of the stars, we find many groups of them moving in opposite directions; and the data as yet in hand render it not necessary, at least, to conceive that the systems composing the Milky Way, or the clusters, general¬ ly, composing the Universe, are revolving about any particular cen¬ tre unknown, whether luminous or non-luminous. It is but Man’s longing for a fundamental First Cause, that impels both his intellect and his fancy to the adoption of such an hypothesis.”*

233

The phaenomenon here alluded to—that of “many groups moving in opposite directions”—is quite inexplicable by Madler’s idea; but arises, as a necessary consequence, from that which forms the basis of this Discourse. While the merely general direction of each atom—of each moon, planet, star, or cluster—would, on my hypothesis, be, of course, absolutely rectilinear; while the general path of all bodies would be a right line leading to the centre of all; it is clear, neverthe¬ less, that this general rectilinearity would be compounded of what, with scarcely any exaggeration, we may term an infinity of particular curves—an infinity of local deviations from rectilinearity—the result of continuous differences of relative position among the multitudi¬ nous3 masses, as each proceeds13 on its own proper journey to the End.

234

I quoted, just now, from Sir John Herschell [sic\, the following words, used in reference to the clusters:—“On one hand, without a rotary motion and a centrifugal force, it is hardly possible not to regard them as in a state of progressive collapse. The fact is, that, in ”

surveying the “nebulae” with a telescope of high power, we shall find it quite impossible, having once conceived this idea of “collapse,” not to gather, at all points, corroboration of the idea. A nucleus is always apparent, in the direction of which the stars seem to be precipitat¬ ing themselves; nor can these nuclei be mistaken for merely perspec¬ tive phaenomena:—the clusters are really denser near the centre— sparser in the regions more remote from it. In a word, we see every

*Betrachtet man die nicht perspectivischen eigenen Bewegungen der Steme, so scheinen viele gruppenweise in ihrer Richtung entgegengesetzt; und die bisher gesaminelten Thatsachen machen es auf s wenigste nicht nothwendig, anzunehmen, dass alle Theile unserer Sternenschicht oder gar der gesammten Stemeninseln, welche den Weltraum fullen, sich um einen grossen, unbekannten, leuchtenden oder dunkeln Centralkorper bewegen. Das Streben nach den letzten und hochsten Grundursachen macht freilich die reflectirende Thatigkeit des Menschen, wie seine Phantasie, zu einer solchen Annahme geneigt. a. P multudinous / NM, HW multitudinous b. P proceeded / HW proceeds

94-

•

THE UNIVERSE. thing as we should see it were a collapse taking place; but, in gener¬ al, it may be said of these clusters, that we can fairly entertain, while looking at them, the idea of orbitual movement about a centre, only by admitting the possible existence, in the distant domains of space, of dynamical laws with which we are unacquainted. 235

On the part of Herschell [5?c], however, there is evidently a reluc¬ tance to regard the nebulae as in “a state of progressive collapse.” But if facts—if even appearances justify the supposition of their being in this state, why, it may well be demanded, is he disinclined to admit it? Simply on account of a prejudice;—merely because the supposi¬ tion is at war with a preconceived and utterly baseless notion—that of the endlessness—that of the eternal stability of the Universe.

236

If the propositions of this Discourse are tenable, the “state of pro¬ gressive collapse” is precisely that state in which alone we are warranted in considering All Things; and, with due humility, let me here con¬ fess that, for my part, I am at a loss to conceive how any other under¬ standing of the existing condition of affairs, could ever have made its way into the human brain. “The tendency to collapse” and “the attraction of gravitation” are convertible phrases. In using either, we speak of the reaction of the First Act. Never was necessity less obvi¬ ous than that of supposing Matter imbued with an ineradicable qual¬ ity forming part of its material nature—a quality, or instinct, forever inseparable from it, and by dint of which inalienable principle every atom is perpetually impelled to seek its fellow.3 Never was necessity less obvious than that of entertaining this unphilosophical idea. Going boldly behind the vulgar thought, we have to conceive, metaphysi¬ cally, that the gravitating principle appertains to Matter temporarily— only while diffused—only while existing as Many instead of as One— appertains to it by virtue of its state of radiation13 alone—appertains, in a word, altogether to its condition, and not in the slightest degree to itself. In this view, when the radiationc shall have returned into its source—when the reaction shall be completed—the gravitating prin¬ ciple will no longer exist. And, in fact, astronomers, without at any time reaching the idea here suggested, seem to have been approxi¬ mating it, in the assertion that “if there were but one body in the Universe, it would be impossible to understand how the principle.

a. P fellow-atom. / NM fellow. b. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation c. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation

95-

•

EUREKA. Gravity, could obtain:”—that is to say, from a consideration of Mat¬ ter as they find it, they reach a conclusion at which I deductively ar¬ rive. That so pregnant a suggestion as the onejust quoted should have been permitted to remain so long unfruitful, is, nevertheless, a mys¬ tery which I find it difficult to fathom. 237

It is, perhaps, in no little degree, however, our propensity for the continuous—for the analogical—in the present case more particu¬ larly for the symmetrical—which has been leading us astray. And, in fact, the sense of the symmetrical is an instinct which may be depend¬ ed ona with an almost blindfold reliance. It is the poetical essence of the Universe—of the Universe which, in the supremeness of its symme¬ try, is but the most sublime of poems. Now symmetry and consisten¬ cy are convertible terms:—thus Poetry and Truth are one. A thing is consistent in the ratio of its truth—true in the ratio of its consisten¬ cy. A perfect consistency, I repeat, can be nothing but an absolute truth. We may take it for granted, then, that Man cannot long or widely err, if he suffer himself to be guided by his poetical, which I have main¬ tained to be his truthful, in being his symmetrical, instinct. He must have a care, however, lest, in pursuing too heedlessly the superficial symmetry of forms and motions, he leave out of sight the really es¬ sential symmetry of the principles which determine and control them.

238

That the stellar bodies would finally be merged in one—that, at last, all would be drawn into the substance of one stupendous central orb already existing—is an idea which, for some time past, seems, vague¬ ly and indeterminately, to have held possession of the fancy of man¬ kind. It is an idea, in fact, which belongs to the class of the excessive¬ ly obvious. It springs, instantly, from a superficial observation of the cyclic and seemingly gyrating, or vorticial movements of those indi¬ vidual portions of the Universe which come most immediately and most closely under our observation. There is not, perhaps, a human being, of ordinary education and of average reflective capacity, to whom, at some period, the fancy in question15 has not occurred, as if spontaneously, or intuitively, and wearing all the character of a very profound and very original conception. This conception, how¬ ever, so commonly entertained, has never, within my knowledge, arisen out of any abstract considerations. Being, on the contrary, always suggested, as I say, by the vorticial movements about centres,

a. P upon / HW on b. P inquestion / NM, HW in question

■ 9 6 •

THE UNIVERSE. a reason for it, also,—a cause for the ingathering of all the orbs into one, imagined to be already existing, was naturally sought in the same direction—among these cyclic movements themselves.a 239

Thus it happened that, on announcement of the gradual and perfecdy regular decrease observed in the orbit of Encke’sb comet, at every successive revolution about our Sun, astronomers were nearly unanimous in the opinion diat the cause in question was found—that a principle was discovered sufficient to account, physically, for that final, universal agglomeration which, I repeat, the analogical, sym¬ metrical or poetical instinct of Man had predetermined to under¬ stand as something more than a simple hypothesis.

240

This cause—this sufficient reason for the final ingathering—was declared to exist in an exceedingly rare but still material medium pervading space; which medium, by retarding, in some degree, the progress of the comet, perpetually weakened its tangential force; thus giving a predominance to the centripetal; which, of course, drew the comet nearer and nearer at each revolution, and would eventually precipitate it upon the Sun.

241

All this was strictly logical—admitting the medium or ether; but this ether was assumed, most illogically, on the ground that no other mode than the one mentioned0 could be discovered, of accounting for the observed decrease in the orbit of the comet:—as if from the fact that we could discover no other mode of accounting for it, it fol¬ lowed, in any respect, that no other mode of accounting for it exist¬ ed. It is clear that innumerable causes might operate, in combina¬ tion, to diminish the orbit, without even a possibility of our ever becoming acquainted with evend one of them. In the meantime, it has never been fairly shown, perhaps, why the retardation occasioned by the skirts of the Sun’s atmosphere, through which the comet passes at perihelion, is not enough to account for the phenomenon. That Encke’se comet will be absorbed into the Sun, is probable; that all the comets of the system will be absorbed, is more than merely possible; but, in such case, the principle of absorption must be re-

a. P them selves / NM, HW them-selves [The word appeared at a line break in the 1848 edition, and the printer omitted the hyphen. Poe penciled it in. We treat “themselves” as one word.] b. P Enck’s / O, W, NM, HW Encke’s c. P spoken of / HW mentioned d. P with one / HW with even one e. P Enck’s / O, W, NM, ETW Encke’s

•97-

EUREKA. ferred to eccentricity of orbit—to the close approximation to the Sun, of the comets at their perihelia; and is a principle not affect¬ ing, in any degree, the ponderous spheres, which are to be regarded as the true material constituents of the Universe.—Touching com¬ ets, in general, let me here suggest, in passing, that we cannot be far wrong in looking upon them as the lightning-flashes of the cosmical Heaven. 242

The idea of a retarding ether and, through it, of a final agglomer¬ ation of all things, seemed at one time, however, to be confirmed by the observation of a positive decrease in the orbit of the solid moon. By reference to eclipses recorded

2500

years ago, it was found that

the velocity of the satellite’s revolution thenwas considerably less than it is note; that on the hypothesis that its motion3 in its orbit is uniformly in accordance with Kepler’s law, and was accurately determined then—2500 years ago—it is now in advance of the position it should occupy, by nearly

9000

miles. The increase of velocity proved, of

course, a diminution of orbit; and astronomers were fast yielding to a belief in an ether, as the sole mode of accounting for the phaenomenon, when Lagrange came to the rescue. He showed that, owing to the configurations of the spheroids, the shorter axes of their ellipses are subject to variation in length; the longer axes being permanent; and that this variation is continuous and vibratory—so that every orbit is in a state of transition, either from circle to ellipse, or from ellipse to circle. In the case of the moon, where the shorter axis is decreas¬ ing, the orbit is passing from circle to ellipse and, consequently, is decreasing too; but, after a long series of ages, the ultimate eccentricity will be attained; then the shorter axis will proceed to increase, until the orbit becomes a circle; when the process of shortening will again take place;—and so on forever. In the case of the Earth, the orbit is passing from ellipse to circle. The facts thus demonstrated do away, of course, with all necessity for supposing an ether, and with all ap¬ prehension of the system’s instability—on the ether’s account.b 243

It will be remembered that I have myself assumed what we may term an ether. I have spoken of a subtle influence which we know to be ever in attendance onc matter, although becoming manifest only through matter’s heterogeneity. To this influence—without daring to

a. P motions / NM, HW motion b. P on the ether’s account / HW on the ether’s account [italics] c. P upon / HW on

.98.

THE UNIVERSE. touch it at all in any effort at explaining its awful nature—I have re¬ ferred the various phenomena of electricity, heat, light, magnetism; and more—of vitality, consciousness, and thought—in a word, of spirituality. It will be seen, at once, then, that the ether thus con¬ ceived is radically distinct from the ether of the astronomers; inas¬ much as theirs is matter and mine not. 244

With the idea of a material ether, seems, thus, to have departed altogether the thought of that universal agglomeration so long pre¬ determined by the poetical fancy of mankind:—an agglomeration in which a sound Philosophy might have been warranted in putting faith, at least to a certain extent, if for no other reason than that by this poetical fancy it had been so predetermined. But so far as Astronomy—so far as mere Physics have yet spoken, the cycles of the Universe are perpetual—the Universe has no conceivable end. Had an end been demonstrated, however, from so purely collater¬ al a cause as an ether, Man’s instinct of the Divine capacity to adapt, would have rebelled against the demonstration. We should have been forced to regard the Universe with some such sense of dissat¬ isfaction as we experience in contemplating an unnecessarily com¬ plex work of human art. Creation would have affected us as an im¬ perfect plot in a romance, where the denotement is awkwardly brought about by interposed incidents external and foreign to the main subject; instead of springing out of the bosom of the thesis—out of the heart of the ruling idea—instead of arising as a result of the primary proposition—as inseparable and inevitable part and par¬ cel of the fundamental conception of the book.

245

What I mean by the symmetry of mere surface will now be more clearly understood. It is simply by the blandishment of this symmetry that we have been beguiled into the general idea of which Madler’s hypothesis is but a part—the idea of the vorticial indrawing of the orbs. Dismissing this nakedly physical conception, the symmetry of princi¬ plea sees the end of all things metaphysically involved in the thought of a beginning; seeks and finds,*5 in this origin of all things,c the rudi¬ ment of this end; and perceives the impiety of supposing this end like¬ ly to be brought about less simply—less directly—less obviously—less artistically—than through the reaction of the originating Act.

a. P principle / HW principle [italics] b. P finds / HW finds, c. P things / HW things,

•99-

EUREKA. 246

Recurring, then, to a previous suggestion, let us understand the systems—let us understand each star, with its attendant planets—as but a Titanic atom existing in space with precisely the same inclina¬ tion for Unity which characterized, in the beginning, the actual at¬ oms after their radiation3 throughout the Universal sphere. As these original atoms rushed towards each other in generally straight lines, so let us conceive as at least generally rectilinear, the paths of the system-atoms towards their respective centres of aggregation:—and in this direct drawing together of the systems into clusters, with a similar and simultaneous drawing together of the clusters themselves while undergoing consolidation, we have at length attained the great Now—the awful Present—the Existing Condition of the Universe.

247

Of the still more awful Future a not irrational analogy may guide us in framing an hypothesis. The equilibrium between the centrip¬ etal and centrifugal forces of each system, being necessarily destroyed onb attainment of a certain proximity to the nucleus of the cluster to which it belongs, there must occur, at once, a chaotic or seemingly chaotic precipitation, of the moons upon the planets, of the plan¬ ets upon the suns, and of the suns upon the nuclei; and the general result of this precipitation must be the gathering of the myriad nowexisting stars of the firmament into an almost infinitely less number of almost infinitely superior spheres. In being immeasurably fewer, the worlds of that day will be immeasurably greater than our own. Then, indeed, amid unfathomable abysses, will be glaring unimag¬ inable suns. But all this will be merely a climacic magnificence fore¬ boding the great End. Of this End the new genesis described0 can be but a very partial postponement. While undergoing consolidation, the clusters themselves, with a speed prodigiously accumulative, have been rushing towards their own general centre—and now, with a million-foldd electric velocity, commensurate only with their mate¬ rial grandeur and with theire spiritual passionf for oneness, the ma¬ jestic remnants of the tribe of Stars flash, at length, into a common embrace. The inevitable catastrophe is at hand.

a. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation b. P upon / HW on c. P described, / HW described d. P thousand-fold / HW million-fold e. P the spiritual / HW their spiritual f. P passion of their appetite / HW passion

•too-

THE UNIVERSE. 248

But this catastrophe—what is it? We have seen accomplished the ingathering of the orbs. Henceforward, are we not to understand one material globe of globes as comprehending and constituting3 the Uni¬ verse? Such a fancy would be altogether at war with every assump¬ tion and consideration of this Discourse.

249

I have already alluded to that absolute reciprocity of adaptation which is the idiosyncrasy of the Divineb Art—stamping it divine. Up to this point of our reflections, we have been regarding the electrical in¬ fluence as a something by dint of whose repulsion alone Matter is enabled to exist in that state of diffusion demanded for the fulfil¬ ment of its purposes:—so far, in a word, we have been considering the influence in question as ordained for Matter’s sake—to subserve the objects of matter. With a perfectly legitimate reciprocity, we are now permitted to look at Matter, as created solely for the sake of this influence—solely to serve the objects of this spiritual Ether. Through the aid—by the means—through the agency of Matter, and by dint of its heterogeneity—is this Ether manifested—is Spirit individualized. It is merely in the development of this Ether, through heterogene¬ ity, that particular masses of Matter become animate—sensitive—and in the ratio of their heterogeneity;—some reaching a degree of sen¬ sitiveness involving what we call Thought and thus attaining obviously Conscious Intelligence.

250

In this view, we are enabled to perceive Matter as a Means—not as an End. Its purposes are thus seen to have been comprehended in its diffusion; and with the return into Unity these purposes cease. The absolutely consolidated globe of globes would be objectless:— therefore not for a moment could it continue to exist. Matter, cre¬ ated for an end, would unquestionably, on fulfilment of that end, be Matter no longer. Let us endeavor to understand that it would dis¬ appear, and that God would remain all in all.

251

That every work of Divine conception must coexist and coexpire with its particular design, seems to me especially obvious; and I make no doubt that, on perceiving the final globe of globes to be object¬ less, the majority of my readers will be satisfied with my “therefore it cannot continue to exist.” Nevertheless, as the startling thought of its instantaneous disappearance is one which the most powerful in-

a. P constituting and comprehending / HW comprehending and constituting b. P divine Art / HW Divine Art c. P thus attaining / HW thus attaining obviously

•

1

O

1

•

EUREKA. tellect cannot be expected readily to entertain on grounds so decid¬ edly abstract, let us endeavor to look at the idea from some other and more ordinary point of view:—let us see how thoroughly and beautifully it is corroborated in an a posteriori consideration of Mat¬ ter as we actually find it. 252

I have before said that “Attraction and Repulsion being undeni¬ ably the sole properties by which Matter is manifested to Mind, we are justified in assuming that Matter exists only as Attraction and Repulsion—in other words that Attraction and Repulsion are Mat¬ ter; there being no conceivable case in which we may not employ the term ‘Matter’3 and the terms ‘Attraction’ and ‘Repulsion’ tak¬ en together, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions in Logic.”*

253

Now the very definition of Attraction implies particularity—the existence of parts, particles, or atoms; for we define it as the tendency of “each atom &c. to every other atom” &c. according to a certain law. Of course where there are no parts—where there is absolute Unity—where the tendency to oneness is satisfied—there can be no Attraction:—this has been fully shown, and all Philosophy admits it. When, on fulfilment of its purposes, then, Matter shall have returned into its original condition of One—a condition which presupposes the expulsion of the separative Ether,b whose province and whose capacity are limited to keeping the atoms apart until that great day when, this Etherc being no longer needed, the overwhelming pres¬ sure of the finally collective Attraction shall at length just sufficient¬ ly predominate’ * and expel it:—when, I say, Matter, finally, expelling the Ether, shall have returned into absolute Unity,—it will then (to speak paradoxically for the moment) be Matter without Attraction

*Page 28—29.d **“Gravity, therefore, must be the strongest of forces.”—See page 45. [P 39.]e a. P Matter / HW ‘Matter’ b. P ether / HW Ether c. P ether / HW Ether d. P *Page 37. / O, NM *Page 38 / HW *Page 57. [Nelson, “Apparatus for a Definitive Edition” 198, notes that it is likely that Poe made an error in the annotation in HW. We have changed the page number to match this volume: *Page 28-29.] e. P See page 39. / O, NM, HW *See page 59. [We have changed the page number to match our text: *(*)See page 45. P contains no example of two footnotes on the same page. Ours are the result of an accident of pagination. P uses one asterisk to indicate a footnote; we provide a second for clarity. The original read, *“Gravity, therefore, must be the strongest of forces.”— See page 39.] •10

2-

THE UNIVERSE. and without Repulsion—in other words, Matter without Matter—in other words, again, Matter no more. In sinking into Unity, it will sink at once into that Nothingness which, to all finite3 perception,15 Uni¬ ty must be—into that Material Nihility from which alone we can conceive it to have been evoked—to have been created by the Voli¬ tion of God. 254

I repeat then—Let us endeavor to comprehend that the final globe of globes will instantaneously disappear, and that God will remain all

255

in all. But are we here to pause? Not so. On the Universal agglomera¬ tion and dissolution, we can readily conceive that a new and perhaps totally different series of conditions may ensue—another creation and radiation,0 returning into itself—another action and reaction of the Divine Will. Guiding our imaginations by that omniprevalent law of laws, the law of periodicity, are we not, indeed, more than justified in entertaining a belief—let us say, rather, in indulging a hope—that the processes we have here ventured to contemplate will be renewed forever, and forever, and forever; a novel Universe swelling into ex¬ istence, and then subsiding into nothingness, at every throb of the

256 257

Heart Divine? And now—this Heart Divine—what is it? It is our own. Let not the merely seeming irreverence of this idea frighten our souls from that cool exercise of consciousness—from that deep tran¬ quility01 of self-inspection—through which alone we can hope to at¬ tain the presence of this, the most sublime of truths, and look it lei¬

258

surely in the face. The phenomena on which our conclusions must at this point depend, are merely spiritual shadows, but not the less thoroughly substantial.

259

We walk about, amid the destinies of our world-existence, encom¬ passed by dim but ever present Memories of a Destiny more vast—very distant in the by-gone time, and infinitely awful.

260

We live out a Youth peculiarly haunted by such shadows;6 yet nev¬ er mistaking them for dreams. As Memories we know them. During our Youth the distinction is too clear to deceive us even for a moment.

a. P Finite / HSN finite b. P Perception / HW perception c. P irradiation / NM, HW radiation d. P tranquillity / HW tranquility e. P such dreams / NM such thoughts / HW such shadows •

10 3-

EUREKA. 261

So long as this Youth endures, the feeling that we exist, is the most natural of all feelings. We understand it thoroughly. That there was a period at which we did not exist—or, that it might so have happened that we never had existed at all—are the considerations, indeed, which during this Youth,3 we find difficulty in understanding. Why we should not exist, is, up to the epoch of our Manhood, of all queries the most unanswerable. Existence—self-existence—existence from all Time and to all Eternity—seems, up to the epoch of Manhood, a normal and unquestionable condition:—seems, because it is.

262

But now comes the period at which a conventional World-Reason awakens us from the truth of our dream. Doubt, Surprise and Incom¬ prehensibility arrive at the same moment. They say:—‘You live and the time was when you lived not. You have been created. An Intelli¬ gence exists greater than your own; and it is only through this Intel¬ ligence you live at all.” These things we struggle to comprehend and cannot:—cannot, because these things, being untrue, are thus, of necessity, incomprehensible.

263

No thinking being lives who, at some luminous point of his life of thought, has not felt himself lost amid the surges of futile efforts at understanding, or believing, that anything exists greater than his own soul. The utter impossibility of any one’s soul feeling itself inferior to another; the intense, overwhelming dissatisfaction and rebellion at the thought;—these, with the omniprevalent aspirations at perfec¬ tion, are but the spiritual, coincident with the material, struggles towards the original Unity—are, to my mind at least, a species of proof far surpassing what Man terms demonstration, that no one soul is inferior to another—that nothing is, or can be, superior to any one soul—that each soul is, in part, its own God—its own Creator:—in a word, that God—the material and spiritual God—now exists solely in the diffused Matter and Spirit of the Universe; and that the regath¬ ering of this diffused Matter and Spirit will be but the re-constitu¬ tion of the purely Spiritualb and Individual God.

264

In this view, and in this view alone, we comprehend the riddles of Divine Injustice—of Inexorable Fate. In this view alone the existence of Evil becomes intelligible; but in this view it becomes more—it becomes endurable. Our souls no longer rebel at a Sorrow which we ourselves have imposed upon ourselves, in furtherance of our own

a. P youth [italics] / NM, HW Youth [italics] [We follow HW.] b. P Spiritual / HW Spiritual [italics] •104-

THE UNIVERSE. purposes—with a view—if even with a futile view—to the extension of our own Joy. 265

I have spoken of Memories that haunt us during our Youth.a They sometimes pursue us even intob our Manhood:—assume gradually less and less indefinite shapes:—now and then speak to us with low voices, saying:

266

“There was an epoch in the Night of Time, when a still-existent Being existed—one of an absolutely infinite number of similar Be¬ ings that people the absolutely infinite domains of the absolutely infinite space.* It was not and is not in the power of this Being—any more than it is in your own—to extend, by actual increase, the joy of his Existence; but just as it is in your power to expand or to concen¬ trate your pleasures (the absolute amount of happiness remaining always the same) so did and does a similar capability appertain to this Divine Being, who thus passes his Eternity in perpetual variation of Concentrated Self and almost Infinite Self-Diffusion. What you call The Universe of Starsc is but his present expansive existence. He now feels his life through an infinity of imperfect pleasures—the partial and pain-intertangled pleasures of those inconceivably numerous things which you designate as his creatures, but which are really but infinite individualizations of Himself. All these creatures—all—those whomd you term animate, as well as those to whiche you deny life for no better reason than that you do not behold it in operation—all these creatures have, in a greater or less degree, a capacity for plea¬ sure and for pain:—but the general sum of their sensations is precisely that amount of Happiness tuhich appertains by right to the Divine Being when concentrated within Himself These creatures are all, too, more or less, and more or less obviouslyf conscious Intelligences; conscious, first, of a proper identity; conscious, secondly and by faint indeterminate glimpses, of an identity with the Divine Being of whom we speak— [*]See page 77S—Paragraph commencing “I reply that the right,” and ending “prop¬ er and particular God.”

a. P youth / NM HW Youth b. P even in / HW even into c. P Universe / HW Universe of Stars d. P those which / HW those whom e. P to whom / HW to which f. P or less / HW or less, and more or less obviously g. P, O, NM, HW. See page 102-103. [We have changed the page number to match our text, added the asterisk omitted in P, O, NM, HW, and allowed the agreement error—“page 102103”—to stand in this variant note.] •105-

EUREKA. of an identity with God. Of the two classes of consciousness, fancy that the former will grow weaker, the latter stronger, during the long suc¬ cession of ages which must elapse before these myriads of individual Intelligences become blended—when the bright stars become blend¬ ed—into One. Think that the sense of individual identity will be grad¬ ually merged in the general consciousness—that Man, for example, ceasing imperceptibly to feel himself Man, will at length attain that awfully triumphant epoch when he shall recognize his existence as that of Jehovah. In the meantime bear in mind that all is Life—Life— Life within Life—the less within the greater, and all within the Spirit Divine. ”a

THE END Note—The pain of the consideration that we shall lose our individual identity, ceases at once when we further reflect that the process, as above described, is, neither more nor less than that of the absorption, by each individual intelligence, of all other intelligences (that is, of the Universe) into its own. That God may be all in all, each must become God.b a. P Divine, [italics] / O, NM, HW Divine. ” [italics] [We follow HW.] b. HW contains an endnote that Poe wrote in pencil. We include it at the end of the text.

• i o 6 •

APPENDIX Poe’s Postscript to a Letter about the Lecture “Eureka”

Because Poe’s letter of February 29, 1848, to his Maine correspondent George W. Eveleth was largely about his lecture “Eureka” and contains a very long postscript that Poe called “a few addenda,” some commentators, following Woodberry, have treated the postscript as though Poe intended it as an addition to the text. We see no evidence for this conclusion. Poe seems to mean “some additional ideas on Laplace”; these are “addenda” to the long letter, some other thoughts on the matter, but not intended for incorporation into Eureka. Indeed, Poe said in the first paragraph of the postsci'ipt that he wrote them earlier. Poe four times annotated copies of Eureka and never added these ideas. Moreover, while in Eureka the scien¬ tific speculation is usually based on sound synthesis of current knowledge, in the postscript it is not. One guesses that it was written before Poe briefed himself on the science he so ably summarizes in Eureka. Since Poe’s manuscript has disappeared (see “A Note on the Text” un¬ der “Editorial Method” and Collected Works, ed. Mabbott, 3:1320) and some quite uncharacteristic locutions appear in this postscript, it is per¬ fectly possible that at least portions are inauthentic. Poe writes “votical” here instead of the “vorticial” which he coined in Eureka (Pollin, Poe, Creator of Words). That might be because he wrote this earlier. Much odd¬ er is “as I have shown, back” (f 13), which, as BRP notes, is not Poe’s style at all. BRP wonders also at a passage in paragraph 17—’’dividing by the breadth to its own periphery that to the periphery of the other.” It does not sound like Poe (indeed, it is not very well written). Speculation is pos¬ sible: careless transcription (or willful distortion?) by Eveleth, careless writing (or “mystification” ?) by Poe, even a forgery by some third party, perhaps after 1896, when the manuscript was last seen. Of the mathematics in this postscript, Bruce Twarog observes that “it is just numerology” and “all nonsense”; there is nothing in it on which he can comment. Note that unlike Woodberry’s consultant Irving String-

•107-

APPENDIX ham, Twarog reports that the summary of scientific data and theory in the body of Eureka is generally very competent and, sometimes, even contains good original observations and plausible speculation. (But see f 172 of Eureka and our note to it for an exception which, significantly, is related to this “Postscript.”) Why then would Poe have recommended the material in the postscript to Eveleth? Perhaps—if Poe wrote the letter after writing Eureka—because he had forgotten much of what he had learned in writing Eureka; perhaps, if the letter came first, because he had not yet mastered the scientific information; perhaps because some authors hate to allow anything they have written to go to waste, especially if it involves extra labor, as the fanciful mathematics did. Perhaps it was to show off a bit, too, before a correspondent who might not catch the unsoundness of the calculations. Probably Poe wrote the postscript for a combination of reasons. Cer¬ tainly the possibility that he had forgotten the sound science might trou¬ ble readers who would rather find evidence of Poe’s fervent belief in the lofty arguments of Eureka.

A Note on the Text We reprint the postscript here in a copy made by Eveleth and kindly provided by the rare book department of the Alderman Library at the University of Virginia. This version is more complete than any we know. T. O. Mabbott included it among Poe’s works of fiction (Collected Works, 3:1319-23) but stopped at the end of paragraph 5; Woodberry’s text (293-301, 295) lacks the final sentence of that paragraph. Ostrom (Let¬ ters of Edgar Allan Poe, 2:360-62) prints the body of the letter, not the postscript. Collected Works contains a list of extant versions of the materi¬ al and variants through paragraph 5. Our introductory note contains ob¬ servations on some peculiarities in this document.

The Postscript 1

By the bye, lest you infer that my views, in detail, are the same with those advanced in the Nebular Hypothesis, I venture to offer a few addenda, the substance of which was penned, though never print¬ ed, several years ago, under the head of—A Prediction.

2

As soon as the next century it will be entered in the books, that the

• 1 o 8 •

APPENDIX Sun was originally condensed at once (not gradually, according to the supposition of Laplace) into his smallest size; that, thus condensed, he rotated on an axis; that this axis of rotation was not the centre of his figure, so that he not only rotated, but revolved in an elliptical orbit (the rotation and revolution are one; but I separate them for convenience of illustration); that, thus formed and thus revolving, he was on fire (in the same way that a volcano and an ignited mete¬ oric stone are on fire) and sent into space his substance in the form of vapor, this vapor reaching farthest on the side of the larger hemi¬ sphere, partly on account of the largeness, but principally because the force of the fire was greater here; that, in due time, this vapor, not necessarily carried then to the place now occupied by Neptune, condensed into Neptune; that the planet took, as a matter of neces¬ sity, the same figure that the Sun had, which figure made his rota¬ tion a revolution in an elliptical orbit; that, in consequence of such revolution—in consequence of his being carried backward at each of the daily revolutions—the velocity of his annual revolution is not so great as it would be, if it depended solely upon the Sun’s velocity of rotation (Kepler’s Third Law); that his figure, by influencing his rotation—the heavier half, as it turns downward toward the Sun, gains an impetus sufficient to carry it by the direct line of attraction, and thus to throw outward the centre of gravity—gave him power to save himself from falling to the Sun (and, perhaps, to work himself gradually outward to the position he now holds); that he received, through a series of ages, the Sun’s heat, which penetrated to his centre, causing volcanic eruptions eventually, and thus throwing off vapor; and which evaporated substances upon his surface, till final¬ ly his moons and his gaseous ring (if it is true that he has a ring) were produced; that these moons took elliptical forms, rotated and re¬ volved “both under one”, were kept in their monthly orbits by the centrifugal force acquired in their daily orbits, and required a long¬ er time to make their monthly revolutions than they would have required if they had had no daily revolutions. 3

I have said enough, without referring to the other planets, to give you an inkling of my hypothesis, which is all I intended to do. I did not design to offer any evidence of its reasonableness; since I have not, in fact, any collected, excepting as it is flitting, in the shape of a shadow, to and fro within my brain.

•109-

APPENDIX 4

You perceived that I hold to the idea that our Moon must rotate upon her axis oftener than she revolves round her primary, the same being the case with the satellites accompanyingjupiter, Saturn and Uranus.

5

Since the penning, a closer analysis of the matter contained has led me to modify somewhat my opinion as to the origin of the satel¬ lites—that is, I think now that these came, not from vapor sent off in volcanic burnings and by simple diffusion under the solar rays, but from rings of it which were left in the inter-planetary spaces, after the precipitation of the primaries. There is no insuperable obstacle in the way of the conception that aerolites and “shooting-stars” have their source in matter which has gone off from the Earth’s surface and from out her bowels; but it is hardly supposable that a sufficient quan¬ tity could be produced thus to make a body so large as, by centrifu¬ gal force resulting from rotation, to withstand the absorptive power of its parent’s rotation. The event implied may take place not until the planets have become flaming suns—from an accumulation of their own Sun’s caloric, reaching from centre to circumference, which shall, in the lonesome latter days, melt all the elements and dissipate the solid foundations out as a scroll! (Please substitute the idea for that in “Conversation of Eiros and Charmion”).

6 The Sun forms, in rotating, a vortex in the ether surrounding him. The planets have their orbits lying within this vortex at different distances from its centre; so that their liabilities to be absorbed by it are, other things being equal, inversely just according to those dis¬ tances, since length, not surface, is the measure of the absorptive power along the lines marking the orbits. Each planet overcomes its liability—i.e., keeps in its orbit—through a counter-vortex generat¬ ed by its own rotation. The force of such counter-vortex is measured by multiplying together the producing planet’s density and rotary velocity; which velocity depends, not upon the length of the plan¬ et’s equatorial circumference, but upon the distance through which a given point of the equator is carried during a rotary period. Then if Venus and Mercury, for example, have now the orbits in which they commenced their revolutions—the orbit of the former 68 million miles, and that of the latter 37 million miles, from the centre of the Sun’s vortex; if the diameter of Venus is 2% times the diameter, and •

1

1

o

•

APPENDIX her density is the same with the density, of Mercury; and if the rota¬ ry velocity of the equator of Venus is 1000 miles per hour, that of Mercury’s equator is 1900 miles per hour, making the diameter of his orbit of rotation 1450 miles—nearly 5 times that of himself. But I pass this point without farther examination. Whether there is or is not a difference in the relative conditions of the different planets, sufficient to cause such diversity in the extents of their peripheries of rotation as is indicated, still each planet is to be considered to have, other things being equal, a vortical resistence bearing the same pro¬ portion, inversely, to that of every other planet which its distance from the centre of the solar vortex bears to the distance of every other from the same; so that, if it be removed inward or outward from its position, it will increase or diminish that resistence, accordingly, by adding to or subtracting from its speed of rotation. As the rotary period must be the same in the two cases, the greater or less speed can be produced only by the lengthening or the shortening of the circumference described by the rotation. 7

Then Mercury, at the distance of Venus, would rotate in an or¬ bit only 37/68 as broad as the one in which he does rotate; so his cen¬ trifugal force, in that position, would be only

37/68

as great as it is

in his own position; so his capability, while there, of resisting the forward pressure of the Sun’s vortex, which (pressure) prevents him from passing his full (circle) distance behind his centre of rotation and thus adds to his velocity in his annual orbit, would be but what it is in his own place. But this forward pressure is only

37/68

37/68

as

great at the distance of Venus as it is at that of Mercury. Then Mer¬ cury, with his own rotary speed in the annual orbit of Venus, would move in this orbit but 37/68 as fast as Venus moves in it; while Venus, with her rotary speed in Mercury’s annual orbit, would move 68/37 as fast as she moves in her own—that is, 68/37 of 68/37 as fast as Mer¬ cury would move in the same (annual orbit of Venus); it follows that the square root of 68/37 is the measure of the velocity of Mercury in his own annual orbit with his own rotary speed, compared with that of Venus in her annual orbit with her own rotary speed—in 8

accordance with fact. Such is my explanation of Kepler’s first and third laws, which laws cannot be explained upon the principle of Newton’s Theory.

•ill-

APPENDIX 9

Two planets, gathered from portions of the Sun’s vapor into one orbit, would rotate through the same ellipse with velocities propor¬ tional to their densities—that is, the denser planet would rotate the more swiftly; since, in condensing, it would have descended farther toward the Sun. For example, suppose the Earth and Jupiter to be the two planets in one orbit. The diameter of the former is 8000 miles; period of rotation, 24 hours. The diameter of the latter is 88000 miles; period, 9 x/% hours. The ring of vapor out of which the Earth was formed, was of a certain (perpendicular) width; that out of which Jupiter was formed, was of a certain greater width. In con¬ densing, the springs of ether lying among the particles (these springs having been latent before the condensation began) were let out, the number of them along any given radial line being the number of spaces between all the couples of the particles constituting the line. If the two condensations had gone on in simple diametric propor¬ tions, Jupiter would have put forth only 11 times as many springs as the Earth did, and his velocity would have been but 11 times her velocity. But the fact that the falling-downward of her particles was completed when they had got so far that 24 hours were required for her equator to make its circuit; while that of his particles continued till but about % of her period was occupied by his equator in effect¬ ing its revolution; shows that his springs were increased above hers in still another ratio of 2 (A, making, in the case, his velocity and his vortical force (2 Va X 11 = ) 27 times her velocity and force.

10

Thus the planets’ densities are inversely as their rotary periods; and their rotary velocities and degrees of centrifugal force are, other things being equal, directly as their densities.

11 Two planets, revolving in one orbit, in rotating would approach the Sun, therefore enlarge their rotary ellipses, therefore accelerate their rotary velocities, therefore increase their powers of withstand¬ ing the influence of the solar vortex, inversely according to the prod¬ ucts of their diameters into their densities—that is, the smaller and less dense planet, having to resist an amount of influence equal to that resisted by the other, would multiply the number of its resist¬ ing springs by the ratios of the other’s diameter and density to the diameter and density of itself. Thus, the Earth, in Jupiter’s orbit,

112-

•

APPENDIX would have to rotate in an ellipse 27 times as broad as herself, in order to make her power correspond with his. 12

Then the breadths, in a perpendicular direction, of the rotary el¬ lipses of the planets in their several orbits are inversely as the prod¬ ucts obtained by multiplying together the bodies’ densities, diameters and distances from the centre of the solar vortex. Thus, the product of Jupiter’s density, diameter and distance being (2/4 times 11 times 5Y4 = ) 140 times the product of the Earth’s density, diameter and distance, the breadth of the latter’s ellipse is about 1.120.000 miles; this upon the foundation, of course, that Jupiter’s ellipse coincides, precisely, with his own equatorial diameter.

13

It will be observed that that process, in its last analysis, presents the point that rotary speed (hence that vortical force) is in exact inverse proportion to distance. Then, since the movement in orbit is a part of the rotary movement—being the rate at which the centre of the rota¬ ry ellipse is carried along the line marking the orbit—and since that centre and the planet’s centre are not identical, the former being the point around which the latter revolves, causing, by the act, a relative loss of time in the inverse ratio of the square root of distance (as I have shown, back); the speed in orbit is inversely according to the square root of distance. Demonstration—The Earth’s orbital period contains 365 V4 of her rotary periods. During these periods, her equator pass¬ es through a distance of (1.120.000

x 22/7 x 365V4 = ) about 1286

million miles; and the centre of her rotary ellipse through a distance

x 2 x 22/7 = ) about 597 million miles. Jupiter’s orbital period has (365 V4 x 2V2 x 12 years = ) about 10.957 of his rotary periods, during which his equator courses (88.000 x 22/7 x of (g5.000.000

10-957 = ) about 3.050 million miles; and the centre of his rotary ellipse, about the same number of miles (490.000.000

x 2 x 22/i).

Dividing this distance by 12 years (3°500000°0/12 = ) gives the length of Jupiter’s doublejourney during one of the Earth’s orbital periods = 254 million miles—Relative velocities in ellipse (1286/254 = ), 5 to 1, which is inversely as the distances; and relative velocities in orbit (597/254 = ), 2 to 1, inversely as the square roots of the distances.

14 The

Sun’s period of rotation being 25 days, his density is only V25

of that of a planet having a period of 24 hours—that of Mercury, for

•113-

APPENDIX instance. Hence Mercury has, for the purpose now in view, virtually, a diameter equal to a little more than Via of that of the Sun (888.000 / 25

= 35.520; 35.520 / 3000 = 11.84; 888.000 / 11.84 = )—say>

75 thousand miles. 15

Here, we have a conception of the planet in the mid-stage, so to speak, of its condensation—after the breaking-up of the vaporous ring which was to produce it, and just at the taking-on of the globu¬ lar form. But before the arrival at this stage, the figure was that of a truck, the vortical diameter of which is identifiable in the periphery of the globe (75.000 x 22 / 7 = )—236 thousand miles. Half-way down this diameter, the body settled into its (original) orbit—would have settled, had it been the only body, besides its parent, in the So¬ lar System—an orbit distant from the Sun’s equator (236.000 / 2 = ) 118 thousand miles; and from the centre of the solar vortex (118.000 + 888.000 / 2 = ), 562 thousand miles. To this last are to be added, successively, the lengths of the semi-diameters of the trucks of Venus, of the Earth—and so on outward.

16

There, the planets’ original distances—rather, speaking strictly, the widths from the common centre to the outer limits of their rings of vapor—are pointed at. From them, as foundations, the present dis¬ tances may be deduced. A simple outline of the process to the de¬ duction is this:—Neptune took his orbit first; then Uranus took his. The effect of the coming into close conjunction of the two bodies was such as would have been produced by bringing each so much nearer the centre of the solar vortex. Each enlarged its rotary ellipse and increased its rotary velocity in the ratio of the decrease of dis¬ tance. A secondary result—the final consequence—of the enlarge¬ ment and of the increase was the propulsion of each outward, the square root of the relative decrease being the measure of the length through which each was sent. The primary result of course was the drawing of each inward; and it is fairly presumable that there were oscillations inward and outward, outward and inward, during sever¬ al successive periods of rotation. It is probable—at any rate, not glar¬ ingly improbable—that, in the oscillations across the remnants of the rings of vapor (the natural inference is that these were not complete¬ ly gathered into the composition of the bodies), portions of the va¬ por were zvhirled into satellites, which followed in the last passage out¬ ward.

17

Saturn’s ring (I have no allusion to the rings now existing), as well •114-

APPENDIX as that of each of the other planets after him, while it was gradually being cast off from the Sun’s equator, was carried along in the track of its next predecessor, die distance, here, being the full quotient (not the square root of the quotient) found in dividing by the breadth to its own periphery that to the periphery of the other. Thus, reckon¬ ing for Uranus a breadth of 17 million miles, and for Saturn one of 14 million miles, the latter (still in his vaporous state) was conduct¬ ed outward (through a sort of capillary attraction) *4/17 as far as the former (after condensation) was driven by means of the vortical in¬ fluence of Neptune. The new body and the two older bodies inter¬ changed forces, and another advance outward (of all three) was made. Combining all of the asteroids into one of the Nine Great Powers (as¬ suming that there is no planet inside of Mercury), there were eight stages of the general movement away from the centre; and, granting that we have, exact, the diameters and the rotary periods (i.e., the densities) of all of the participants in the movement, the measure¬ ment of each stage, by itself, and of all the stages together can be calculated exactly. 18

How will that do for a postscript?

1 1 5 •

.

NOTES

Eureka Title: “I have found [it],” a famous remark attributed to Archimedes (ca. 287-212 b.c.e.) , who supposedly so exclaimed on finding a way through displacement to determine the amount of gold in an alloy. Dedication: Humboldt: Friedrich Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1850). See notes to paragraphs 9, 231, and 232. Preface: In his story “Loss of Breath” (1835), Poe wrote, “William Godwin . . . says in his ‘Mandeville,’ that ‘invisible things are the only realities.’” Poe used a mod¬ ified version of the phrase from Godwin in the tale “Berenice” (1835) as well. The phrase probably connects also to a passage in the Memories of the Life of Sir Humphry Davy, Bart by Davy’s brother, John, a book Poe used elsewhere; the passage speaks of “the universal mind” in which man’s intellect at its strongest is no more than “a mere image in a dream” (Pollin, Discoveries in Poe, 109, 177— 78). rise again . .. Everlasting: Poe echoes John 5:24: “He thatheareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death into life.” Burton R. Pollin (BRP) sug¬ gests that the association came via William Cullen Bryant’s poem “The BattleField,” stanza 9 of which includes, “Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again; / Th’ eternal years of God are hers.” The poem was first published in the Demo¬ cratic Review in October 1837; the stanza in question became famous because of a widely reported incident. Benjamin F. Buder, attorney general under presidents Jackson and Van Buren, quoted it to loud applause in a speech in Tammany Hall. A voice from the crowd called for a cheer for Shakespeare. Buder said it was not by Shakespeare but by an American contemporary, Bryant, and the crowd went wild (Godwin, A Biography, 1:337^.

1

solemn—. . . august: BRP asks of this opening paragraph, “Is Poe serious or aim¬ ing to be breathless?” He notes that “august” usually applies to persons and wonders about Poe’s “humility.” Certainly, the heavy use of dashes is often in Poe a sign of less than serious intention (see note to paragraph 122).

7

TEtna: Mt. Aetna (or Etna) was very acdve, and explorers, “as Poe probably knew,” had found it to be “a truncated cone without a top.” Thus nobody could whirl

•117-

NOTE TO PAGE 8 on his heel on “the top” of Etna (Holman, “Splitting Poe’s ‘Epicurean Atoms’”). On the other hand, Etna was the universal symbol of a big, high, dominant peak in that era; it was “ready to hand” for numerous writers. Poe used it himself in an important aesthetic fantasy philosophically close to Eureka, “The Domain of Arnheim” (a briefer version, “The Landscape Garden,” appeared in 1842 and 1845, the longer in 1847). Ellison, an ideally gifted and inspired poetic vision¬ ary landscape architect, searches for years for a perfect site for his masterpiece: “We came at length to an elevated table-land of wonderful fertility and beauty, affording a panoramic prospect very litde less in extent than that ofdEtna” (Col¬ lected Works, 3:1278; Short Fiction, 11; Thirty-Two Stories, 212). The volcano in Sic¬

ily, the idea of panoramic sweep, and the notion of cosmic unity are common to both pieces. Holman also detects a submerged allusion here to Lord Rosse (see f 163ff.), Etna being part of the Rossi Mountains. Ketterer also sees humor in Poe’s locating his viewer on “top” of a volcano. But, loosely, one does reach the top; the spinning on the heel to get a sense of oneness strikes us as funnier. The idea of viewing the earth from the height of Etna appears, along with a wide range of other ideas that also recur in various places in Poe, in chapter 1, paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Philadelphia 1834 edition (and a large number of subsequent editions) of John Herschel’s A Treatise on Astronomy, a work Poe used in Eureka and quoted from (see K227 and note). The ideas include the “in¬ sufficient supply of air” at high altitudes, seeing a great portion of the surface of the earth, famous balloon ascensions, whether the earth would look concave or convex from that height, Cotopaxi, and the process of compressing air. Because the range of associations occurs in other writers, one does not want to make firm claims about influence, but the concentration of common referents here and in Poe is striking. See especially Poe’s “The Balloon-Hoax” (1844), “Hans Pfaall” (1835), and “Mellonta Tauta,” glossed in Short Fiction, and more fully in Collect¬ ed Writings, vol. 1. Posey has suggested this passage in Herschel as a source for

“Hans Pfaall.” A review of the scholarship is in Collected Writings, 1:487. 9

Humboldt: See note to dedication. Holman (“Hog, Bacon, Ram”), who believes that satire is the main intention in Eureka, thinks even the praise of Humboldt ironic: she finds Poe contemptuous of broad generalizers. We disagree. Poe is contemptuous of nearsighted fact-grubbing but consistently praises bold theo¬ rizing. See what Poe says about Humboldt in paragraph 231; see also the short stories about Ellison and Dupin, the “Sonnet: To Science,” and his criticism. Humboldt’s Kosmos (Stuttgart, 1845- ) was promptly available in translation in the United States: Cosmos (New York, 1845-). In thejuly 12, 1845, Broadway Jour¬ nal, Poe noted its publication in Germany; he announced the New York edition

in both the August 30 and September 13 numbers of the Broadway Journal and noted a review of it in the issue for October 11,1845. See Collected Writings, 3:169, 3:234, 3:247, 3:281, 4:i27-28nn. synoeretical: Pollin reports, “Not in OED as adjective for any spelling” (Poe: Cre¬ ator of Words, 38).

•

1

1

8

•

NOTE TO PAGE 9 11

remarkable letter . . . bottle: Much of the material in the next paragraphs (11— 24) Poe used as well in “Mellonta Tauta” (1849), a witty story set in the year 2848 {Thirty-Two Stories, 346-60; Short Fiction, 547-48, 588-96, 616-19; Collected Works,

3:1289-309). Its text purports to be a letter written aboard the excursion bal¬ loon Skylark on April Fool’s Day by Pundita to a friend. Although Pundita’s world has learned to theorize imaginatively, Pundita is ignorant and a snob. Poe uses her to attack nineteenth-century technology and politics, especially the U.S. government and its leaders, but her era is shown to be as blind as Poe’s in most ways: the tale ends with the failure of the balloon. Pundita’s knowledge of “an¬ tiquity” is comically distorted, but she tends to use correct spellings for the names of hgures Poe admired. Pollin (“Poe’s Use of Material”) establishes Poe’s frequent use of ideas from Bemardin de Saint-Pierre’s Etudes; entrusting a manuscript to a bottle appears there and in several places in Poe. “Mellonta Tauta” was prefaced by a “letter” “To the Editor of the Lady’s Book,” signed by Poe, which shares language and details with paragraph 11 of Eureka. In the story, the “odd-looking MS.” was found “about a year ago, tightly corked up in a jug floating in the Mare Tenebrarum—a sea well described” etc. It seems evident to us that although Eureka was published first, the story was written be¬ fore it. Collected Works (3:1290) details the publication history—“Mellonta Tau¬ ta” had been sold to Louis Godey for use in Godey’s Lady’s Book; Godey did not print it until after the book Eureka was published and was apparently angry that Poe had used it. See f i8n. Mare Tenebrarum: Poe’s source is a passage in Jacob Bryant’s A New System; or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology: “By the Nubian Geographer the Atlantic is uniformly

called, according to the present version, Mare Tenebrarum. Aggressi sunt mare tenebrarum quid in eo esset, exploraturi. They ventured into the sea of darkness, in order to explore what it might contain ” (see ^[65 and f 650). Bryant’s Mythology was

one of Poe’s favorite sources of ideas. Collected Writings (2:xxiv-xxv) lists numer¬ ous items in Poe’s “Pinakidia” and “Marginalia” based on that book. Bryant’s imaginative mode of showing all ancient religions as variants of the same mirac¬ ulous events provided imagery to enrich several Poe stories, although Poe knew that the learned antiquarian Bryant was as wrong as Poe’s own Pundita (Levine and Levine, “History, Myth, Fable”). Poe quotes this passage from Bryant in “Ele¬ onora.” He also refers to “the Nubian geographer’s account of the Mare Tenebrarum”\n “A Descent into the Maelstrom” {Thirty-Two Stories, 34702, 159-73,

esp. 16103; Short Fiction, 547-48, 616-19, 588-96, esp. 6i6n2, 59^; see also Collected Works, 2:595; 2:646, 3:1305).

Ptolemy Hephestion: Although Jacob Bryant does mention “Ptolemy Hephaestion,” he did not call him “the Nubian geographer.” Bryant refers rather to al Idrisi, author of Geographia nubiensis. Poe’s error seems to be deliberate; one of the runningjokes in “Mellonta Tauta” is about antiquarians getting names, facts, and dates wrong. Poe refers to Ptolemy Hephestion in “Berenice” and elsewhere.

•ll9-

NOTE TO PAGE 9 The Ptolemy who was a geographer was Claudius Ptolemaeus (fl. 127-148), to whom Poe also refers elsewhere (Collected Writings, vol. 2; Pollin, Dictionary of Names and Titles). “Ptolemy Hephestion” was Ptolemy Chennos, son of Hephes-

tion, “one of the Mythographi whose works are synopsized by Photius” (Collected Works, 2:22ong). Poe, in short, hides one deliberate error within another. Look¬

ing through his other references to the several Ptolemys makes it clear enough that he knew one from the other. Transcendentalists . . . crotchets: Poe’s attitude toward transcendentalism is com¬ plex. Probably envious of Emerson and generally hostile to New England Tran¬ scendentalists, he nevertheless was philosophically quite close to them. Eureka is, after all, a treatise on the importance of artistic, intuitive, transcendental in¬ spiration as a source of scientific cosmological truth. Poe repeatedly mocked the very ideas in which he seemed to believe most consistently. Extensive discussion of Poe and transcendentalism appears in Levine, Edgar Poe, esp. 33 and 151-68. 12

Aries . . . Tottle: Aristotle is “Hindoo” in “Mellonta Tauta.” BRP suggests an echo of a book by Charles Dickens that Poe praised in the June 1836 Southern Literary Messenger {Complete Works, g:45ff.): Watkins Tottle, and other sketches, illustrative of every-day Life, and every-day People by Boz [Dickens]. Poe singles out the title piece

for mention and quotes it at length. expel. . . nose: Mabbott writes that “Aristotle, in Problemata, xxxiii, g, said that sneezing comes from the head, the ‘seat of reason’” {Collected Works, 3:1318^). Poe probably had the idea secondhand. Montaigne, in Book 2, chapter 27 of his Essays, says that “sneezing . . . because it proceeds from the head, and is with¬ out offense, we give . . . civil reception,” while frowning on other bodily exhala¬ tions. “[D]o not laugh at this distinction,” Montaigne continues, “for they say it is Aristotle’s” (2:375). In a chapter called “[0]n Sneezing,” Sir Thomas Browne says that Aristotle feels sneezing to be a sign of mental health (there is a folk belief that idiots never sneeze). Browne writes that sneezing, “being properly a motion of the brain expelling through the nostrils what is offensive to it,” is therefore a good sign. For that reason, he says, Aristotle holds it sacred. We guess that Poe’s source is an article (“On the Custom of Saluting after Sneezing”) in Isaac Dis¬ raeli’s Curiosities of Literature (i7gi, and many subsequent editions), one of his favorite idea-mines. “Aristotle,” Disraeli wrote, “has delivered some considerable nonsense on this custom: he says it is an honorable acknowledgement of the seat of good sense and genius—the head—to distinguish it from two other offensive eruptions of air, which are never accompanied by a benediction from by-standers” (35). Poe used the same material in his story “Bon-Bon,” a satiric tale he revised and republished repeatedly between 1832 and 1845, more evidence of how close¬ ly related Eureka is to the texture of Poe’s fiction. “Bon-Bon” is annotated in Collected Works (2:83ff.) and Short Fiction (356, 431-35).

truths .. . se/fevident: Poe alludes, of course, to the Declaration of Independence. Tuclid ... C for a K: With slight alterations, Poe used this material in “Mellonta

•12 0-

NOTE TO PAGE 10 Tauta.” Pundita’s spelling for Euclid was “Neuclid.” Much of the humor in that story is temporal. To a writer in 2848, Greece of the third century

b.c.e.

and

Germany (not Holland) of 1800 do not seem significandy distant in time from one another. Poe used the “Kant/Cant” pun several times in other works. The sneer at the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant (1724—1804) is not iso¬ lated, yet Poe in other works as well as in Eureka espouses similar ideas (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 88; and for extended discussion of Poe and Kant, see Omans,

“‘Intellect, Taste’”). Thomas Ollive Mabbott (TOM) adds that Kant “was einDeutscher, a German, but not ein Hollander, a Dutchman” (Collected Works, 3:1318n4).

13

Hog . . . shepherd: Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the British essayist and philos¬ opher who argued for an analytical and inductive approach to knowledge, be¬ lieved that such pooled learning would in fact produce progress. Poe’s letterwriter, like Pundita in “Mellonta Tauta,” makes a double error. Having called Bacon “Hog,” the writer then confuses him with James Hogg (1770-1835), who was called “the Ettrick Shepherd” and whose name would have been familiar to magazine readers from his work in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, his narrative poems, and his novels. Holman (“Hog, Bacon, Ram”) thinks a link is likely be¬ tween these pig jokes and the references in paragraph 18 to John Stuart Mill (K18n). Holman’s conjecture seems plausible for a stronger reason: in the same chapter from Mill that Poe quotes in paragraph 17 (f i7n), Mill makes exacdy that point, even including the idea of seeing Bacon as a fallacious successor to philosophers of antiquity. Mill says that Aristotle is “the consummation of this mode of speculation” (A System of Logic, 467) and then writes, From the fundamental error of the scientific inquirers of antiquity, we pass, by a natural association, to a scarcely less fundamental one of their great ri¬ val and successor, Bacon. It has excited the surprise of philosophers that the detailed system of inductive logic, which this extraordinary man labored to construct, has been turned to so little direct use by subsequent inquirers, having neither continued, except in a few of its generalities, to be recognized as a theory, nor having conducted in practice to any great scientific results. But this, though not unfrequently remarked, has scarcely received any plau¬ sible explanation; and some, indeed, have preferred to assert that all rules of induction are useless, rather than suppose that Bacon’s rules are grounded upon an insufficient analysis of the inductive process. (468) Most likely, Poe used the Harper and Brothers 1846 New York edition, to which our page numbers refer; see especially pages 468—70, which tie together numer¬ ous items in connections that one finds also in Poe. (Holman speculates also on the possibility that Poe intended to put Delia Salter Bacon [ 1811 -59] or her broth¬ er, Dr. Leonard Bacon, on his reader’s mind. Delia Bacon was a lecturer. She and her brother moved legally against a Yale University ministerial student in a juicy breach-of-promise matter.) Pollin (Discoveries in Poe, 180-83, 282045) discusses the connections among “Hog-ites,” Poe’s correspondent George Eveleth, andjohn Wil¬ liam Draper. In a letter to Eveleth of June 26, 1849, Poe calls Draper the “chief’

•12

1-

NOTES TO PAGES 10-11 of Hog-ites and says, “He is aware . . . that I intended him in ‘Eureka.

Pollin is sure

that Draper was not aware and concludes that Hog-Ettrick Shepherd-james Hogg “seems not to allude to Draper at all.” Apparendy the Hog-Draper connection was real in Poe’s mind, but it is less than certain that he intended it in Eureka. The let¬ ter to Eveleth postdates lecture and book. instantice Natures: Latinists translate this phrase as “instances of nature” and re¬

port that it does occur, starting in Medieval Latin, with the meaning Poe gives it. We found plentiful examples of both instantice and of natures, but even our Latinist consultants could not find the two together in Bacon (see “Hog,” above) or in the Latin word lists and dictionaries of Bacon’s period. noumena . . . phenomena: The letter-writer’s contrast appears in Kant (“Cant”), who

opposed noumena, objects understood through intellectual intuition, with phe¬ nomena, one’s “precepts or experiences of objects in the world” about one.

savans: Poe consistently used the old spelling (savans) of this word in Eureka and in the Godey’s version of “Mellonta Tauta” (BRP reports nine instances). Most editors modernize it to savants. Median: Unchangeable; see Daniel 6:8, “Now, O King, establish the interdict and sign the document so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians” (Forrest, Biblical Allusions). “Baconian”: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 74). “Hog-ian”: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 74). 14

intuitive leaps: In “Mellonta Tauta,” Pundita phrases it, “All true knowledge . . . makes its advances almost invariably by intuitive bounds.” Poe means this se¬ riously. Knowledge progresses mainly through intuitive inspiration, not through reasoning from given premises (Aristotle) or from sorting, classifying, and ana¬ lyzing (Bacon). Although Poe sometimes mocks writers who praise intuition— Emerson, for example—he generally trusts it himself. The inspired artist has a direct line to “Truth” and is an important source of knowledge, scientific as well as aesthetic. See Poe’s “Sonnet—To Science,” Emerson’s poem “Blight,” Shelley’s “Defense of Poetry” (1822), and Poe’s stories about the master detective Dupin (especially “The Purloined Letter”) for other contemporary statements on the effi¬ cacy of artistic inspiration. Thomas Ollive Mabbott (Collected Works, 3:131805) sug¬ gests as well “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and number 8 in “A Chapter of Suggestions.” Aries . . . ram: In astrology, Aries the Ram is the first sign of the Zodiac. Hav¬ ing called Aristotle “Aries Tottle,” Poe now makes a bad pun by allowing his letter-writer (the sex of the letter-writer in Eureka is indeterminate; in “Mellonta Tauta” it is a woman) to try her hand, inaccurately, at etymology (see also Ii2n).

15

Scotch snuff of detail: Pollin says, “Scotch snuff seems to be an Americanism giv-

•12 2-

NOTES TO PAGES 11-12 en by Craigie (DAE) [Dictionary of American English] as ‘finely ground snuff of a characteristic strength and pungency prepared from well dried tobacco.’” It was “used for fumigation as well as an inhalant” (Collected Writings, 2:486). Hog-ites: See Pollin (Poe: Creator of Words, 74). inter-Tritonic minnows: Triton is, of course, a Greek sea deity. Poe seems to mean minnows among “monstrous denizens of the sea” (TOM, notes). It is likely that he is echoing a yet-unlocated source for the phrase. See also “unlettered hind” (fi6nn). Pollin (Poe: Creator of Words, 74) notes that the Oxford English Dictionary “gives an 1836 Tritonic only.” 16

on the face of the earth: From Genesis 6:1. Bacon-engendered: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 70). one-idead: Poe’s coinage (ibid., 58). unlettered hind: The phrase is from the first lines of the lady in John Milton’s masque “Comus” (TOM): This way the noise was, if mine ear be true, My best guide now; me thought it was the sound Of riot, and ill manag’d merriment, Such as the jocond flute, or gamesom pipe Stirs up among the loose unleter’d hinds, When for their teeming flocks, and granges full, In wanton dance they praise the bounteous Pan, And thank the gods amiss. {Oxford Anthology, 334) It may be that several associations in this portion of Eureka connect to “Comus.” The masque opens with a speech by an “attendant Spirit,” which is heavy in allu¬ sions to sea deities. Poe’s “inter-Tritonic minnows” of paragraph 15 just might tie that passage to this.

17

“ex nihilo nihil fit”: The idea—“out of nothing comes nothing”— is from Lucre¬

tius (ca. 95-55

b.c.e.),

whose DeRerumNaturaVoe clearly knew. The exact phrase

appears in the writings of Epicurus (ca. 340-270

b.c.e.)

(TOM). A list of Poe’s

allusions to Lucretius is in Pollin (Word Index). Poe planned a collection of tales, each supposedly the creation of a different author, each a member of the “Folio Club.” Poe used the title of Lucretius’ work as the name of one “author,” writ¬ ing it, “De Rerum Natura, Esqr.” {Collected Works, 2:205). Poe’s immediate source, however, for this and the two propositions that follow was John Stuart Mill’s A System of Logic (1843). In the Harper and Brothers New York 1846 edition, this

quotation appears on page 462 in Book 5, chapter 3, “Fallacies of Simple Inspec¬ tion; Or A Priori Fallacies” (see f 1311). That the propositions appear together is one of several reasons it seems quite certain Mill is Poe’s source; in the next para¬ graph, Poe says that Pundita is looking at Mill. “thing ... is not”: This appears on the previous page in Mill at the start of the

•12 3-

NOTE TO PAGE 1 2 preceding paragraph. Mill’s sense is close to Pundita’s; even the idea of looking back to the errors of a previous age is in both. Mill writes, “Rather more than a century and half ago it was a philosophical maxim, disputed by no one, and which no one deemed to require any proof, that ‘a thing cannot act where it is not.’” “there . . . antipodes”: Mill puts it as follows on page 460 of the same passage: “It was long held that Andpodes were impossible, because of the difficulty which men found in conceiving persons with their heads in the same direction as our feet.” “darkness . . . light”: This hypothetical proposition does not appear in the pas¬ sage in Mill from which we have been quoting, although its logical reason for being here is the same. To illustrate another logical error, Mill on page 463 uses an example that involves whiteness. Itjust may have suggested the light and dark illustration to Poe. Although Poe’s source for at least three of the four axioms is Mill (or a sec¬ ondary account or review of Mill, Poe being an avid reader of magazines and collecdons), their appearance is a fine reminder of the lineage of Eureka, the tradition from early antiquity of works that were at once poetic, scientific, and religious. Poe was familiar with his contemporary Mill and with Lucretius, but ideas like these axioms are in Parmenides, too, a much earlier, pre-Socratic, philosopher of the Eleatic School to which Poe elsewhere refers—see his satiric “How to Write a Blackwood Article” (1838-45). The axioms in Mill and Poe are not, according to classicists consulted, literal quotations; Mill and Poe meant them as typical axioms of classical philosophers. See our Introduction to Eureka for comparison of Eureka to the fragments that have survived of Parmenides’ great account of his visit to the Goddess of Truth. Compare Mill’s and Poe’s examples— “a thing cannot act where it is not,” “there cannot be antipodes,” and “darkness cannot proceed from light”—with these utterances of the goddess: “Gaze stead¬ fastly at things which, though far away, are yet present to the mind. For you can¬ not cut off being from being: it does not scatter itself into a universe and then reunify”; “Strong conviction will not let us think that anything springs from Be¬ ing except itself”; and “It is indifferent to me at what point I begin, for in any case I must return again to that from which I set out” (Wheelwright, The Presocratics, 96-97).

18

Pundit: In Poe’s “Mellonta Tauta,” Pundit is the narrator’s husband (see

1111).

Because there is no special reason for introducing these characters into his lec¬ ture or book, they suggest that the story existed first and that Poe left them in to simplify the job of editing the material for incorporation into Eureka. Miller, or Mill: John Stuart Mill (1806-73) • His System of Logic (1843) is an anal¬ ysis of the process of inductive logic (f 13ml; ^[i7nn; f i8nn, next item). Hol¬ man (“Hog, Bacon, Ram”), although unable to establish firm connections, thinks that it is likely that Poe, like Carlyle, meant to charge Mill with swinishness; hence, the pigjokes of ffi2ff. Pollin (Collected Writings, 2:170 and 2:227) points out

•124-

NOTE TO PAGE 1 2 that Poe seems sometimes to confuse J. S. Mill with Mill’s father, James Mill (1773-1836), but the fact that Poe is quoting J. S. Mill in this portion of Eureka suggests that it is he whom he intends. Poe has his letter-writer confuse “Mill” with “Miller” to put in the reader’s mind the name of Joe Miller (1684-1738), the supposed author of a famous book of jokes, Joe Miller’s Jest-Book (see Collected Works, 2:259—64). Bentham: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), Utilitarian philosopher. Mill was deep¬ ly influenced by Bentham, particularly by the doctrine of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, but Mill’s independence from Bentham is shown in his opinion of him: “he was not a great philosopher but a great reformer in philos¬ ophy:” (Atkinson, Jeremy Bentham, 31). The political causes for which Mill fought would not have been attractive to Poe: Negro rights, woman suffrage, workers’ rights. Bentham, moreover, had an aversion to poetry (TOM, notes). For discus¬ sion of Poe’s views of the connection between Bentham and Mill, see Collected Writings, 2:170-72, 2:107, 2:110, and cross-referenced locations.

19

“Ah!—Ability”: In the same passage from Mill that Poe uses so heavily in this portion of Eureka (see notes to f 13 and f 17 especially) Mill makes precisely the point, although not in exactly the words Poe places in quotation marks. Mill writes, for example, “[W]hat we cannot think of as existing, cannot exist at all,” and, “Whatever is inconceivable is false” (A System of Logic, 460). Mill, like Poe, says that such reasoning is fallacious; mankind, he says, assumed that “a thing cannot act where it is not” because people could not conceive that it could be untrue. But Newtonian gravity plainly involves things acting where they are not. Therefore, “inability to conceive” is not a valid argument. Poe’s recurrent fits of hostility to Mill seem illogical, for what he objects to in Mill in his items on Mill in “Marginalia” (Introduction, items 63, 124, in Collected Writings, vol. 2) is pre¬ cisely what Mill objects to in the passage Poe uses. Mill demonstrated the falla¬ cies of a priori reasoning. David Hume: (1711-76). The skeptical empiricist Scottish philosopher and his¬ torian. His moral theory does, in fact, anticipate Bentham and Mill. Joe: At least three possibilities, all plausible: 1. There was ajoseph Hume (1777-1855), Poe’s contemporary and famous enough to be well known in America. A leader of the Radical Party in the House of Commons, he proposed a broad slate of reforms in government and church. Poe was generally hostile to meliorists. 2. Joe Miller (see note to f 18). 3. “Joe” in the sense of “anybody” or “everyman.” Such locutions are a lit¬ erary convention of the period. Compare Thoreau’s “John or Jonathan” at the close of Walden, in which “John” probably means “all Englishmen” and “Jonathan” all Americans. Poe may well have intended all three possibilities.

•125*

NOTES TO PAGES 13-15 20

sotticism: Pollin (Poe: Creator of Words, 37) reports that this word is “derived from French and English sottise” and does not appear in the OED. It is Poe’s coinage and seems to mean “foolishness.” BRP points out that sottise has nothing to do with the English word sot, habitual drunk (although Poe must have been aware that the meaning would occur to readers). BRP adds that it “was a favorite word.” Pollin (Poe: Creator of Wards) lists four instances. See also Complete Works, 13:51, where Poe uses it to describe the speech of an egotistical character in a play, and, below, paragraph 130, where Poe used it, then altered it to “folly.”

21

Soul. . . soar: Cf. Poe’s poem “To Helen” (the later poem by that tide): “like thine own soul, soaring” (TOM, notes). The date strengthens the connections. Poe first published the poem, then called “To-,” in the November 1848 issue of Union Magazine (later Sartain’s).

22

Kepler: Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), great German astronomer. See subse¬ quent note. In Poe’s story “Mellonta Tauta,” Kepler’s is one of the few names that Pundita does not misspell. See note to paragraph 11. Laplace: Pierre Simon, Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827), was an important French astronomer, theoretician, and mathematician. See note to paragraph 77.

23

cryptographist: Poe’s interest in cryptography was considerable—see his story “The Gold Bug,” especially. He even made journalistic'claims about his ability to solve coded passages. The word is Poe’s coinage. Pollin lists points at which he used it or the word cryptograph (Poe: Creator of Words, 84-85). Champollion:Jean Frangois Champollion (1790-1832), using the Rosetta Stone, learned to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics. The stone, found in 1799, bore an inscription in two different forms of hieroglyphics and in Greek. “Solving” it was a great scholarly feat. Poe indicates respect for the accomplishment by having the letter-writer spell “Champollion” correctly. phonetical hieroglyphics: This was Champollion’s phrase (TOM, notes). Irwin observes that Poe’s letter-writer in Eureka “ .. associates Champollion’s intuitive deciphering of the hieroglyphics with Kepler’s intuitive grasp of the laws of grav¬ ity.” Irwin concludes from this association “that Poe’s own ‘scientific reading’ of the physical shape of the universe in Eureka is to be understood as an imagina¬ tive decipherment of the cosmic hieroglyph” (American Hieroglyphics, 43-4466). Irwin (4666) also treats at length Humboldt’s discussion of Aztec hieroglyphics and Poe’s other references to that subject (pt. 2 passim). Newton: Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the great English scientist whose name Poe also allowed to be remembered correctly through the fictional ages. guessed: Hodgens observes that here Poe disagrees with Nichol, who says (Lec¬ ture 3, p. 21) that “guesses are nothing, unless verified” to “the high philosopher.” John Pringle Nichol, Regius Professor of Astronomy at the University of Glas¬ gow, was the author of Views of the Architecture of the Heavens (1837), and Poe’s competitor for a lecture audience when Eureka was given as a talk. See Pollin,

•12 6-

NOTE TO PAGE 16 “Contemporary Reviews of Eureka, ’’for details. References to Nichol’s lectures are to the New York 1848 edition, Views of Astronomy. Seven Lectures Delivered, be¬ fore the Mercantile Library Associations of Neiu York in the Months of January and Feb¬ ruary, 1848, as transcribed by Oliver Dyer, “Phonographic Writer.” Poe’s letter-writer’s attempt to define precisely what enabled Kepler to make a great breakthrough in astronomy is somewhat inaccurate, although Poe shows some familiarity with the history of that science. Kepler had been given by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) the task of creating a conceptu¬ al model of the solar system that would fit Tycho’s highly accurate empirical data. Tycho, however, believed that the earth was at the center of the system; he also thought in terms of circular orbits for the sun, planets, and satellites. Kepler dutifully worked at the mathematics of model-building for four fruitless years, adding to the circular orbits the circular wheels-upon-wheels of cycles and epi¬ cycles that were the traditional astronomical method of handling discrepancies between model and observadons. Tycho’s death freed Kepler to use a new mod¬ el with the sun at the center and elliptical orbits. Kepler got his model to work but had no physical understanding of why it worked. Newton would provide the basis for a theoretical account of why Kepler’s model worked. So the statement in Eureka is not quite right. Kepler worked for years to find the laws; there was no inspired guessing of a theory because he produced no theory, although no science historian would deny that the model, his visualization, might well have re¬ sulted from the combination of induction, deduction, and subliminal associa¬ tion that Poe describes. Poe is being perhaps excessively fussy in not calling the “route” intuition. The argument, however, occurs so often in his work that one can define what he has in mind. Neither blind data-gathering nor simple guesswork produces truth. An infonned and perceptive poetic intellect can perceive truth slantingly, as—to use Poe’s analogy—the eye sees a dim star best when one does not look directly at it. Ram-ishly: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 87).

24

“I care not. . .fury”: Patrick Quinn calls this a “free paraphrase of the final sen¬ tences in the Proem to Book V of Kepler’s Harmonice Mundi (1619)” {Edgar Al¬ lan Poe, 1399). Margaret Alterton thinks Poe read Kepler’s comments in John Drinkwater Bethune’s Life of Kepler (1830) in “The Library of Useful Knowledge” (TOM, notes; Collected Works, 3:1319). Alterton quotes Bethune as follows: What I prophesied two and twenty years ago . . . what I firmly believed long before I had seen Ptolemy’s “Harmonics.” . . . Great is the absolute nature of Harmonics in all its details ... it is found among all celestial notions ...[.] Nothing holds me. I will indulge in my sacred fury: I will triumph ... I have stolen the golden vases of the Egyptians. If you forgive me, I rejoice; if you are angry, I can bear it; . . . the book is written, to be read either now or by posterity. I care not which—it may well wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an ob¬ server. (Origins, 142)

•127-

NOTES TO PAGES 16-20 Mabbott observes that Poe might have seen Kepler’s “rhapsodic outburst” in a wide variety of places, because it was very well known (Collected Works, 3:1319m 1).

26

unastronomical: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 9).

27

Solomon Seesaw: Poe alludes to John Parish Robertson’s Solomon Seesaw (Lon¬ don, 1839), a humorous novel in three volumes. There are no sonnets in it, al¬ though Robertson makes a great deal of dialects, manners, and gestures. The character Solomon Seesaw courts and eventually weds the daughter of a haugh¬ ty Welsh woman. Robertson concludes, “Thus I bring to a close the not long, but eventful, History of the ‘Ups and Downs of Solomon Seesaw.’” Had Seesaw writ¬ ten sonnets, they would likely have been poor. Poe reviewed the novel in the September 1839 Burton’s. He also coined a similar name, “Solomon Seadrift,” for a member of his “Folio Club.” See f I711 and Collected Works, 2:205 (TOM, notes; BRP).

29

thought of a thought: Mabbott (TOM, notes; Collected Works, 1:405-9) suggests comparison to Poe’s poem “To-(Marie Louise Shew)” (1848), which contains the line “unthought-like thoughts that are the souls of thought” in a context that is, in fact, related to the idea here. “To-” is a gallantly flatter¬ ing piece that argues at the start that the poet had recently denied that ever A thought arose within the human brain Beyond the utterance of the human tongue. The name Marie Louise, however, proves the speaker wrong, for the words stir “from out the abysses of his heart, Unthought-like thoughts,” etc. “Unthought¬ like” is another of Poe’s coinages (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 67).

30

Poe’s “quotations” in this paragraph are probably suppositional statements. The last one (“The mind admits . . . space”) plainly is.

31

jump twenty: BRP suggests that Poe was using personal experience. Two pub¬ lished items cite his prowess: He is said to have gone 21V2 feet (Southern Literary Messenger 2, 9 [Aug. 1836]: 597; Saturday Museum, March 4, 1843). By contem¬ porary standards, 21

feet would be beyond the range of an untrained broad-

jumper but attainable by a trained high school athlete. The world record is around twenty-nine feet.

33

insupportable: See Collected Writings, 2:270, for a guide to Poe on puns.

35

I cannot conceive. . . . fancy: BRP suggests that Poe repeated here much of what he wrote elsewhere in “his attempts to define ‘fancy’ and ‘imagination.’” Poe’s source, BRP continues, was often Coleridge (Collected Writings, 3:16-18; Poe on Nathaniel P. Willis, Broadway Journal, Jan. 18, 1845, and note to it, in Collected Writings, 4:17n, 17/12-36; see also Omans, “‘Intellect, Taste,”’ 137).

37

inessentiality: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 29).

•12 8

-

NOTES TO PAGES 21-22 thinkers-that-they-think: Poe’s coinage (ibid., 66). Poe probably echoes Des¬ cartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” self-cognizance: Poe’s coinage (ibid., 63).

39

periphrasing: Not listed in most modern dictionaries but not a coinage. The Oil) gives a 1652 precedent where it appears in the same sentence as “paraphrasing.” It means “expressing something in a roundabout way.” It is . .. nowhere: Blaise Pascal (1623-62), Pensees 2:72 (TOM, notes). The French reads, “C’est une sphere dont le centre est partout, la circonference nulle part.” Pascal’s Pensees exists in numerous editions; the wording of the line varies from one to another. We follow M. Leon Brunschvicg because his edition includes variants we noticed in editions from Poe’s era. The wording which Poe quotes is that which Brunschvicg prefers. The Pensees, written “in fragments” and published posthumously, “trace the universal search for God,” (W. F. Trotter, xv). This par¬ ticular thought has been attributed to sources as old as Empedocles and Hermes Trismegistus and was in common use by the French authors Rabelais, Gerson, St. Bonaventure, and Vincent de Beauvais. Pascal is known to have read it in Lady Gournay’s preface to the Essays of Montaigne: “Trismegiste, y est-il dit, appelle la Deite cercle dontle centre est. . . .etc” (Pascal, Pensees, ed. Brunschvicg, 348; Pas¬ cal, Pensees, [Paris, 1876], n8n).

40

“Nous . . . ourselves”: Book 1, ch. i, “On Theology,” sec. 1 from Jacob Friedrich Bielfeld (1717-70), Les premiers traits de I’erudition universelle, ou analyse abregee de toutes les sciences, des beaux-arts et des belles-lettres (TOM) (Leyden, 1767, and nu¬ merous subsequent editions (Collected Writings, 2:6). Mabbott notes that there was a translation by W. Hooper, M.D. (Elements of Universal Erudition), but Poe’s English translation was not copied from it. Pollin (Collected Writings, 2:6) shows how extensive is Poe’s use of material from Bielfeld, suggests the 1770 London edition as Poe’s source, and explains that Bielfeld was a Prussian who wrote in French.

41

BRP speculates about “a parallel in tone and idea with [the motto of ‘Ligeia’] (Poe-created) and [the] major theme [of that story] (as in Collected Works 2:310; 319-320). Note the contrived dramatic ‘dialoguism’ here and that in the nar¬ rative.” His suggestion seems apt. See also Thirty-Two Stories, 54-55, 55112, 6263010; Short Fiction, 64, 79, i03nm, 2, 104010. The title, “Ligeia,” reinforces the connection; if man were a part of the godhead, God’s will and man’s, God’s knowledge and man’s, would be identical. Poetic inspiration (Ligeia is the spir¬ it of divine inspiration) would be a manifestation of the transcendent oneness.

44

If. . . Omnipotence: Poe added this sentence for stress. Summary of Poe’s argu¬ ment at this point appears in A. H. Quinn {Edgar Allan Poe, 545—46), who re¬ peats Poe: all creation comes from an original particle; multipicity begins in unity; God’s spirit (“Nihility”) created matter; only intuition can guide us to such pri¬ mal truths. Poe’s position is close to Emerson’s.

•12 9

-

NOTES TO PAGES 23-25 45

Imparticularity: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 29). Used also in paragraph 153. The discussion in the following passage (paragraphs 45-49) should be com¬ pared, as BRP suggests, to the character Vankirk’s explanation of “unparticled matter” in the 1844 tale “Mesmeric Revelation” (Collected Works, 3:1029-40, esp. 1033-35; Short Fiction, 139-45, esP- 141 “4 2) • Hypnotized at the point of death, Vankirk is able to report back on what he has learned. God is “not spirit.” “Nor is he matter” as mankind understands matter, for “there are gradations of matter of which man knows nothing. . . . These gradations of matter increase in rarity or fineness, until we arrive at matter unparticled, ” which “permeates” and “im¬ pels all things.This matter is God” (Collected Works, 1030; Short Fiction, 141). Vankirk explains that “the infinitude of littleness in the spaces between [atoms] ... is an absurdity.” There is a point at which matter is so ratified that the spaces “vanish” and the mass coalesces into one imparticled whole, which is at once “matter” and what is called “spirit.” But “spirit” “is ... as fully matter as before” (Collected Works, 1034; Short Fiction, 142). “without. . . void”: Poe quotes Genesis 1:2.

49

unimaginably yet not infinitely minute atoms: Poe may have in mind here Lu¬ cretius’ De Rerum Natura (ca. 55 b.c.e.). See, for example, Lucretius, On the Na¬ ture of the Universe,

37-45.

Poe was familiar with the works of Lucretius and his

predecessor Epicurus. For numerous references to these authors, see the listings in Pollin, Dictionary of Names and Titles, 32, 58; see also 1[ 1 71, H 1 7 1 n.

50

uniquity: Perhaps this is merely a more formal way of saying “uniqueness” in the sense of “original one-ness,” a term Poe might have wanted to avoid. See “How to Write a Blackwood Article” (1838): “Put in something about the Supernal Oneness. Don’t say a syllable about the Infernal Twoness” (Thirty-Two Stories, 7475; Short Fiction, 360; Collected Works, 2:342). Poe made fun of transcendental as¬ sumptions (see Thirty-Two Stories, 68ff., esp. 68-69, 7on3, 74ml; Short Fiction, 414-17, esp. nn3,i 1). inequidistance: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 29). “But,” BRP adds, “the adjective has a 1677 instance.” difference of form: For a discussion of the difference of form in atoms in Lucre¬ tius, see On the Nature of the Universe (71-78). reunition: BRP notes that this word “is apparendy a theological coinage of 1635, 1693 and laically in 1893, with Poe’s instance ignored by the OED; a convenient term for the gerund ‘reuniting’ or the unsuitable ‘reunion.’ Poe’s care in plac¬ ing the dieresis over the first vowel (also in “reaction” in paragraph 51, and in numerous other words formed with ‘re’) is his regular custom, q.v. in Collected Writings, 2 :xxxviii-xl. ”

52

Relation: Poe’s use of the word is very odd. He means “physical relationship” or “physical interaction,” with the added implication “of utmost complexity.” He

•130-

NOTES TO PAGES 26-28 explains his ad hoc definition of “relation” in paragraph 50, where he speaks of “the utmost possible multiplicity of relation out of the emphatically irrelative One. ” The original atom, in plain language, had nothing with which to react. “Divine Will” burst it into bits that could then interact. The point of “utmost possible Rela¬ tion” is the time of maximum diffusion.

53

Uni-tendency: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 39). the impenetrability of matter: It is now understood that it is electromagnetism that keeps one from putting one’s finger through a wooden table. But there is no universal “repulsive” force of the sort Poe postulates.

54

the God: An interesting locution. We think that Poe intends it to embrace “the gods” of polytheistic religions and the “God” of monotheism, the merger imply¬ ing something like “world-spirit.” the knot: Poe probably has in mind the Gordian knot, through which Alexander the Great is supposed to have cut.

56

unempirically: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 39). no-difference: Poe’s coinage (Ibid., 58). The amount. . . composed: Poe’s formula (the italicized sentence) would not work for gravity. He is trying to say that the size of the effect is in relationship to the discrepancy between the two objects. There is no formula of this sort outside of Poe (Twarog).

57

To electricity— . . . Thought: Writers in Poe’s era were confident that science was on the verge of providing physical and logical proof of spirituality. It is for this reason, for example, that an American literary magazine, Atkinson’s Casket (the journal that was to become Graham’s, with Poe as editor) in 1838 ran an item describing the work of a French experimenter in applying electricity to human nerves for therapeutic purposes. Such information was of special interest because it suggested material explanation for hitherto intangible phenomena. It is for this reason that Poe in paragraphs 55IT. extrapolates physical fact (one gener¬ ates electricity by moving one electrically charged unit through the field of an¬ other) to universal speculation. If the nervous system runs via electricity, then thought, spirit, or intangible spirituality are likely to be “real,” based on physics; the poetic creation and the physical universe would thus be interlocked and perhaps identical. See Poe’s visionary tales, especially “The Power of Words” and other angelic colloquies. At this stage in Eureka, Poe does not spell out the connection: Electricity (or some other cause) accounts for light, heat, and magnetism and also for spiritu¬ al things such as thought. There is, we shall learn, a link between physical fact and intimations of the cosmic unity. Poe would have assumed that readers caught the implications before he made them explicit; educated people all supposed that something of the sort would soon be demonstrated (Levine, Edgar Poe, 135). The idea had been current for some time. Richard Lovett (1692-1780), for

•131-

NOTES TO PAGES 28-30 example, had argued in his Electrical Philosopher (Worcester, Eng., 1774) that the “electrical fluid” is the “mechanical Cause that we breathe live and move; the efficient Cause of all motion; the physical Cause of Gravitation, Cohesion, Mag¬ netism, the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, and of all of the other of the most ab¬ struse Phenomena of Nature” (19). Lovett and others who try to provide materi¬ alistic explanations of the hitherto ineffable are discussed in Schofield (Mechanism and Materialism, esp. 163, 200, 206). A book published in 1792 in Philadelphia (William Cullen, First Lines of the Practice of Physic) defines the tie from human physiology to the cosmos explicitly by making analogous connections between electricity and “aether”: “As electrical matter may exist in bodies ... so the aether in the nervous system exists” (quoted in Schofield, Mechanism and Materialsm, 206). Twarog adds that the idea was hardy and long-lived; it was to be incorpo¬ rated into spiritualism later in Poe’s century. (The matter is discussed in Bran¬ don, The Spiritualists.) Poe’s suggestion that there may be something more fundamental underlying “light, heat and magnetism” that we might, “for the present,” call electricity (but presumably is not quite that either) is a fine example of his ability to point to areas in which future theorizers would have to work. Poe does not “predict” the current controversial attempt to explain all physical phenomena through “su¬ perstrings,” for his next paragraph moves in a different direction. But he did sense the need for totally new kinds of formulations to account for the existence and nature of the universe.

58

Attraction and Repulsion: Terms introduced into molecular theory by Ruggiero Giuseppi Boscovich (1711—87), who visualized atoms as the “nuclei of attractive and repulsive forces” (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 405018). BRP points to a prior discussion by Poe of attraction and repulsion in “Pinakidia” (item 151). The item and a meticulous explication appear in Collected Writings, 2:93-94, where Poe’s main source is identified as Baron Jacob Bielfeld’s Elemen ts of Universal Erudition. Woodberry and his scientific consultant, Irving Stringham, said of Poe’s theory that Poe’s “position, that matter came from nihility and consisted of centers of force, had been put forth as a scientific theory by Boscovich in 1758-59, had been widely discussed, and had found its way into American text-books” (Poe, The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Stedman and Woodberry, 9:309). Woodberry’s treatment of Eureka seems uncharacteristically offhanded and abrupt; he was plainly impatient with it.

62

metaphysical schools: BRP writes, “For Poe’s disdain for these ‘schools,’ see his scornful coinage ‘metaphysicianism’” in Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 31, which guides the reader to instances in Poe’s fiction, criticism, and miscellaneous writ¬ ing. famous . . . experiments: In 1774, Nevil Maskelyne (1732-1811) conducted a famous experiment at Mt. Schehallion, Perthshire, Scotland (not Wales). The idea was to measure the deflection from vertical of a pendulum caused by the ■l32-

NOTE TO PAGE 3 1 proximity of the mountain, thus determining the gravitational constant—that is, G—through a formula: “F = G x ATM2 R2 in which F = force due to gravity, G = gravitational constant, M1 and M2 = the masses of the two objects, and R = the distance between the two objects” (Twarog). Cavendish: Working independently, as Poe suggests, Flenry Cavendish (17311810) did similar work with an “apparatus of movable lead balls” (TOM, notes). Cavendish’s results were published in 1798. Bailly: Poe’s spelling suggests that he confused the French astronomer J. Sylvain Badly with the British astronomer Francis Baily (1774-1844), who “laboriously repeated" the Cavendish experiments following 1838 (TOM, notes). But Poe might simply have misspelled the name. 65

Bryant. . . “Mythology”: One of Poe’s favorite sources was A New System; or, An Analysis of Antient Mythology (1774-76) by Jacob Bryant (1718-1804), a book

which, on the basis of linguistic evidence—evidence that was, alas, quickly seen to be unsound—argues that intimate relationships connect a wide range of an¬ cient myths and religions. Though Bryant’s Mythology was unconvincing, it was im¬ mensely learned and remains fascinating. Poe loved it, although he saw through it, and borrowed from it the symbolic underpinnings of several stories, notably “Metzengerstein” (1832) and “Shadow” (1835). His ambivalence toward Bryant, who seemed to him both imaginatively intriguing and funny, is important for understanding Poe’s attitude toward Eureka. This analogical reference to Bryant seems perfectly serious, yet it is plain that Poe was, to some extent, pulling our leg.

“Erudite” is ironic. Poe knew exactly how “erudite” poor Bryant had been. Full¬ er discussion of Poe’s use of Bryant, including the passage quoted here, is in Le¬ vine and Levine, “History, Myth, Fable,” in which are plentiful examples of Poe’s attitude—for instance, the section in “Four Beasts in One—The Homocameleopard” (written by 1833, published 1836) in which Poe concludes a passage based on material derived from Bryant, “what great fools are antiquarians.” In the sto¬ ry “The Purloined Letter” and item 70 of “Pinakiclia” Poe uses this quotation, which may be found in volume 2, page 173, of the 1807 London edition of Bry¬ ant (Thirty-Two Stories, 267111 2; Short Fiction, 24gn 12). See also paragraph 11 note, Mare Tenebrarurn. A list of Poe’s sources for “Brevities” in Collected Writings (2:xxiv-

xxv) illustrates how heavy is his use of Bryant. concentralization: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 25), which he repeats

in paragraphs 85 and 86. especiality: “Poe often italicized his own coinages, although sometimes erroneous¬

ly.” “Concentralization” (see previous item) is credited “solely to Poe by the OED, while ‘especiality’ is cited solely for 1460.” The OED omits Poe’s use (BRP) (Pol¬ lin, Poe: Creator of Words, 16). Because several italicized words in this passage are

•13 3

-

NOTES TO PAGES 32-33 common terms (sensitive, perception, and essential), especiality might not indicate that Poe thought it a coinage. phaenomenon: “The spelling . . . seems eighteenth century or earlier, an appar¬ ent affectation in Poe, for all twelve instances in the OED for the nineteenth cen¬ tury drop the ‘a’ of the diphthong” (BRP). BRP suggests a search of John Herschel as a likely source of Poe’s odd spelling, but Herschel consistently spelled it “phen.” See, for example, the 1830 article “Sound,” which Herschel contrib¬ uted to the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana: Physical Astronomy. Sound. Light (n.p., n.d.), 820. See as well Outlines of Astronomy (Philadelphia, 1853, but unaltered in spelling from earlier editions), in which “Phenomena” is a page heading and forms of the word, so spelled, appear frequently. See also paragraph 178n, “excentrically.” 67

wilderness: “A favorite word in Poe. (Pollin [ Word Index] gives twenty-nine instanc¬ es), often indicating [Jmultifold confusion[’] as well as ‘wild places’” (BRP).

68

mote: Nichol (Views of Astronomy, Lecture 3, p. 15) uses the same word in a very similar context (Hodgens typescript). If I venture. ... of their Creator: Thus every action alters the universe. In the poetic visionary fantasy “The Power of Words” (1845), Poe has one angelic spir¬ it explain to another how each spoken word, through the vibrations it creates, literally and physically changes the world; the speaker shows his companion a star that he has spoken into existence {Thirty-Two Stories, 322, see also 318; Short Fiction, 116, see also 107-8; Collected Works, 3:1215). InEurekaand elsewhere, Poe

gave spirituality the physical basis that people of his era were sure science would soon provide. See also Levine, Edgar Poe, esp. i55ff69

unthoughtlike thoughts: paragraph 2g and paragraph 29m soul-reveries: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 65).

71

brotherhood: Compare Poe’s letter to John Neal (Poe, Letters of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Ostrom, 1:32, dates it Oct.-Nov. 1829): “the beauty of the . . . sky and the sunshiny earth—there can be no tie more strong than that of brother for broth¬ er .. . that they love the same parent” (TOM, notes). This is the letter that be¬ gins, “I am young—not yet twenty—am a poet—if deep worship of all beauty can make me one. ” omniprevalent: “This is Poe’s coinage, as OED says for this usage; [it is] used also in the Evening Mirror of 1/13/1845. [It appears also] in ‘Marginalia’ item 134 [Collected Writings, 2:234], but spelled with a hyphen, ‘omni-prevalent’” (BRP). One: Poe seems to believe sincerely in ultimate unity and Oneness in the sense the

New England Transcendentalists did. Yet as always in Poe, there was ambivalence, for he increasingly came to attack Transcendentalists in print. In “How to Write a Blackwood Article,” his comic satire on magazine article writing, for example, he has “Mr. Blackwood” tell the aspiring incompetent author Psyche Zenobia, “Put in something about the Supernal Oneness. Don’t say a syllable about the Infer-

* 1 3 4 ’

NOTES TO PAGES 33-36 nal Twoness.” (In early versions of the tale, he aimed satire at Goethe or Coleridge, and in 1845 he turned on The Dial, the Transcendentalist journal. See Collected Works, 2:359~6on21.) Where, then, did Poe stand, if he propounded this unity

as eternal truth on one page yet mocked it on another? this . . . One: Poe deliberately breaks grammatical rules for poetic emphasis. His meaning is clear: this absolute, irrelative, unconditional oneness. 73

sphericity: See Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 37. BRP suggests that the term, with a misspelling (“sphereicity”), was probably borrowed from Herschel (see f 227n). radiated: As our list of variants shows, Poe altered this word (and also “irradi¬ ate” and “irradiation”) from the published “irradiated.” Both words carry the sense of “sending forth from a center,” but “irradiate” was more commonly used to mean “light up” or “illuminate.” Poe’s alterations were in the interest of pre¬ cision.

75

Dr. Nichol. . . . “Geometry”: Poe quotes either the Tribune report of Nichols talk, which was printed on the morning of Poe’s Eureka lecture, February 3 (Conner’s idea), or the pamphlet reprint of the Tribune articles (Connor, “Poe and John Nichol”; Nichol, Views of Astronomy, [New York, 1848], Lecture 3, p. 20) (Hodgens typescript; TOM, notes). There are minor variations between the version Hodgens quotes and Poe’s quotation. See also Pollin, “Contemporary Reviews of Eureka, ” n5_ John Pringle Nichol was Regius Professor of Astronomy at the University of Glasgow; Emerson helped arrange his lectures, which were unfor¬ tunate competition for Poe, who had hoped to raise enough cash from his talk to bankroll a proposed magazine, “The Stylus.”

76

“ultimate principles,” . . . God?: Pressed by the competition of Nichol and eager to show that he, too, is an authority, Poe both quibbles and deals with Nichol’s ideas out of context. Nichol “was talking about discrepancies between the ob¬ served and calculated paths of Uranus.” Poe distorts Nichol, too; his Views of the Architecture of the Heavens and the 'Tribune account of January 31 both make plain

that he would agree with what Poe said about the “Volition of God” (Conner, “Poe and John Nichol,” 201-2). There is no doubt that Poe knew much of the Nichol material well; see, for example, his note to paragraph 163. self-evidence: paragraph 12m 77

Magnetism . . . Transcendentalism: See our note to paragraph 57. Each of the “isms” Poe lists is concerned in part with unifying spiritual links between one per¬ son and another or between any person and the universe. Thus magnetism (or, for other speculators, electricity) was supposed to make possible the phenomenon now labeled as hypnotism. “Mesmerism,” as hypnosis was then called, was felt to be based on “Animal Magnetism.” Swedenborgianism (see Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 77) is the philosophy of the mystic philosopher and scientist Emanuel Swe¬

denborg (1688-1772), who was supposed to have been clairvoyant (see Poe’s sto¬ ry “The Fall of the House of Usher” [1839], in Collected Works, 2:392-422; Short

• 1 3 5 •

NOTE TO PAGE 36 Fiction, 62, 64-65, 88-98, 104-6; Thirty-Two Stories, 87-103). Ralph Waldo Emer¬

son, the principal voice of New England Transcendentalism, spoke of a “worldspirit” or “Oversoul.” The liberated human spirit was capable of receiving direct inspiration through the Oversoul; it was, moreover, identical with the Oversoul— though Emerson often deliberately maintained an ambiguity about whether the Oversoul was literally “out there,” permeating all things, or only within each per¬ son (see, e.g., the opening chapter of Nature [1836]). Poe’s sarcasm in regard to “isms” is misleading, for Eureka plainly argues that some unifying spiritual force exists and that, moreover, it is susceptible to scientific analysis and explanation. Laplace . . . attack it: See note to paragraph 22. Beaver, in a different context, quotes a passage from Laplace’s Mecanique celeste (1798) in which Laplace came close to what Poe demands (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Bea¬ ver, 4o6n). Laplace said that if one knew enough about forces and had enough data—in modern terms, if one could quantify the variables—one could, if intel¬ ligent enough to analyze them all, derive a formula that would remove uncer¬ tainty of past, present, and future. Poe’s remark about Laplace’s timidity, then, is somewhat unfair. mathematico-physical: The term derives from Herschel’s A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, 366:274 (OED).

Leibnitz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1648-1716) “held substance to be force; [and] space, matter [and] motion ... [to be] phenomenal; he believed in the continuity and development of consciousness” (TOM, notes). Compare Poe’s comment about Leibnitz in “Marginalia” item 38: “Leibnitz . . . was fond of in¬ terweaving even his mathematical, with ethical speculations, making a medley rather to be wondered at than understood” (Collected Writings, 2:146). Poe per¬ haps thought of Leibnitz in this context because Poe perceived a connection between his (Poe’s) speculation about “some principle . . . behind the Law of Gravity” and what he termed “Leibnitz’ Law of Continuity. ’’See Collected Writings (2:190-91, 2:272) for discussions of Poe’s—limited—knowledge of Leibnitz. physico-metaphysical: Poe’s coinage, following the pattern of “mathematicophysical” above. See Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 33, for Poe’s parallel coinage: “Physico-mental” (BRP). 78

taken for a madman: Speaking in his own voice in a treatise, which, he says, he wants taken seriously as his most important pronouncement, Poe uses a favorite device from his fiction, in which often a narrator begins by telling the reader that he comes from a family noted for mental instability, or that people have called him mad, or even that “you may think me mad, but I am sane—see how cleverly I can reason?” Such passages offer rationalist readers the option of considering the narrative that follows merely a projection of a disordered mind and there¬ fore credible as psychological fiction: the events may be incredible, but the “pro¬ jection” is credible. Poe’s use of the device here should trouble the reader who want to see Eureka as entirely serious.

•136-

NOTES TO PAGES 38-40 I here declare . . . thing: Poe’s certainty contrasts strikingly to Isaac Newton’s great uncertainty. Newton wrote in a letter of February 25, 1692/3 that the idea of one body acting upon another through a vacuum and at great distance “without the mediation of anything else ... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it” (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 406-70). 83

light-particles: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 55). light-impressions: Poe’s coinage (ibid., 54).

84

particles: In this paragraph, Poe seems to be using a theory of light as particles. In contemporary (2004) science, light-as-particles accounts for certain phenom¬ ena, whereas others require light-as-waves. We do not have a single accepted theory to account for the nature of light. There is a summary of the ambiguous state of the issue in Poe’s day in Beaver (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 397-403) that connects the uncertainty on this and related matters to Newton’s puzzlement.

85

Conversing: The OED provides several very old (from 1551 on) instances of “con¬ version” being used to mean “turning around” but does not list “conversing” in that sense. BRP suggests, “Poe seems to be coining a verb from the mathemati¬ cal term ‘the converse of.’” “concentralization”: Poe provides an ad hoc definition here because his previ¬ ous use of this coined word in paragraph 65 is different.

87

slight inspection . . . situated: This is a strangely naive statement for Poe to make. When the Milky Way is visible, a “slight inspection” in fact suggests just the op¬ posite; the distribution of stars does look roughly even. Yet Poe is right that the distribution of matter in the universe is, as Twarog puts it, “lumpy,” but seems roughly even. Poe visualizes an analogy between the “radiation” of atoms and heavenly bodies. irrelation: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 30). Compare De Quincey’s 1848 usage cited in the OED: “The instinct of contempt. . . towards literature was supported by the irrelation of literature to the state.”

89

Footnote: Poe’s note refers the reader to a page and passage in Tales by Edgar A. Poe. At that point in “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” his detective (not Poe himself) explains that the Paris police have failed to solve a double murder be¬ cause they “have fallen into the gross but common error of confounding the unusual with the abstruse. But it is by these deviations from the plane of the or¬ dinary, that reason feels its way, if at all, in its search for the true.” It was what was most bizarre about the case that made solving it easiest for Dupin. He says that the question to ask is not ‘“what has occurred’” but rather “‘what has occurred that has never occurred before.’ In fact,” Dupin concludes, “the facility with which I shall arrive, or have arrived, at the solution of this mystery, is in the direct ratio of its apparent insolubility in the eyes of the police.” Citing his fictitious charac-

.137.

NOTES TO PAGES 40-47 ter in this context illustrates, first, the close ties of Eureka to the fiction and, sec¬ ond, Poe’s incurable love of playing games as he wrote. The cross-reference is discussed in Collected Works, 2:5731:33; see also Poe’s cross-reference from “The Mystery of Marie Roget” to “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (ibid., 3:737). 90

I do not say: Compare the conclusion of Thoreau’s Walden (1854): “I do not say thatjohn orjonathan will realize all this. . . . The sun is but a morning star” (266). One should not claim that Thoreau had read Eureka or that there is a common source, although both are quite possible. But the similarities suggest another way in which Eureka is a transcendentalist document. There is even a surprising amount of shared rhetoric. See paragraph 97 for another example or examine WaldenJust five paragraphs before the passage quoted, where Thoreau uses the

rare word tintinnabulum, suggesting again a tie to Poe, who coined “tintinnabu¬ lation” in his poem “The Bells.” I go on to say. . . . Nature: BRP suggests that “the word ‘say’ plus the anaphora in the verbs show the lecture-style origin of the treatise.” 91

ray-streams: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 61).

93-95

Read in isolation, this passage could be taken as Poe’s anticipation of the

current (2004) investigation of subatomic physics; he could be said to be talk¬ ing about the “strong force” and the “weak force.” He is not. He is constructing a model, analyzing what one might see if one could freeze the diffusing process at several stages and examine the distribution of “atoms.” See paragraph 110 for further apparent but misleading evidence of Poe’s prescience. 97

I. . . expect to find, lurking . . . the secret: See paragraph 90m Compare the last paragraph of the chapter entitled “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For” in Thoreau’s Walden, which is also about searching intuitively for truths buried “somewhere hereabouts” and rhetorically overlaps the passage in Eureka.

110 strongest of forces: Poe is not predicting the more recent subatomic physics (HI9395n)111 they can: Poe’s intention is “can they.” satisfactions: BRP notes that “it is odd to find here the language of Bentham’s Utilitarianism (the maximum of satisfactions or pleasures)” applied to atoms. Such anthropomorphic language, however, is consistent with Poe’s general philo¬ sophic scheme, for he is arguing, after all, that matter and spirit are one and that the laws of physics are the will of God. 114 exactly. . . purposes: BRP notes Poe’s discussion of “the great idiosyncrasy in the Divine system of adaptation,” namely, “the complete mutuality of adaptation.” Poe writes: In Divine constructions, the object is either object or purpose, as we choose to regard it, while the purpose is either purpose or object; so that we can never (abstractedly, without concretion—without reference to facts of the moment)

•138-

NOTES TO PAGES 47-52 decide which is which. For secondary example:—In polar climates, the hu¬ man frame, to maintain its due caloric, requires, for combustion in the stom¬ ach, the most highly ammoniac food, such as train oil. Again:—In polar cli¬ mates, the sole food afforded man is the oil of abundant seals and whales. Now, whether is oil at hand because imperatively demanded?—or whether it is the only thing demanded because the only thing to be obtained? It is im¬ possible to say. There is an absolute reciprocity of adaptation, for which we seek in vain among the works of man. (“Marginalia,” item 18, in Collected Writings, 2:127-28)

Poe argues that his view of “Divine . . . adaptation” is absent from the “Bridgewater Treatises” (1833-40, see f 133n). “Marginalia” item 18 is the one that ends with the famous statement “The Universe is a Plot of God.” The connection with Eureka, then, is extremely likely.

116 surface: As the list of textual variants shows, Poe changed the printed “circum¬ ference” to “surface.” The latter is preferable because Poe’s perception is threedimensional; he envisions a sphere, not a circle. 118 “In the beginning”: Poe’s quotation from Genesis starts a paragraph on the sus¬ tained effects of God’s creadon (“continuous Volition ”). Compare the usual deistic model of a clockwork universe set in motion by God. “sw^-principle”: BRP notes Poe’s fondness for the qualifying prefix sub. See Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 37, which includes “sub-sub-editor.” One thinks of Melville’s “poor devil of a Sub-Sub” librarian in the “Extracts” section of MobyDick; this must have been a popular gag.

122 To explain:—. . . . —unless: Poe’s heavy use of dashes (seventeen in this para¬ graph alone, one of which is very much oversize) may lead readers to question his seriousness, for he had written satirically on the subject in a tale about a hack writer so full of self-importance that he considers calling his memoirs “Memo¬ randa to serve for the Literary History of America.” At the conclusion, the liter¬ ary hack gives one reason for his “success”: “The style!—that was the thing. I caught it from Fatquack—whizz!—fizz!—and I am giving you a specimen of it now.” (See “The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.” [1844], in Thirty-Two Sto¬ ries, 284-302; Short Fiction, 353-54, 422-25; and Collected Works, 3:1124-48.) It

is, of course, possible that Poe slipped into the rather shrill tone that so many dashes produce here for reasons other than stylistic whimsey, but there is other evidence that “Thingum Bob” was on his mind as he wrote Eureka (see 1 i4gn). For Poe on the “proper” use of the dash, see “Marginalia” item 191 (Collected Writings, 2:325-27). To BRP, dashes used this way also suggest oral presentation,

attesting to the origin of Eureka as a lecture (see f gon). An enlightening discus¬ sion of Poe’s more serious reasons for using dashes in Eureka appears in Dayan, Fables of Mind.

129 See paragraphs 94-96.

•13 9-

NOTES TO PAGE 54 133 The Body . . . hand: In the February 1836 Southern Literary Messenger, Poe favorably reviewed Peter Mark Roget’s Animal and Vegetable Psychology, Considered with Refer¬ ence to Natural Theology (Complete Works, 8:206-11). To brief himself on the series

of books of which Roget’s formed a part, he read an anonymous article in the Quarterly Review (vol. 50, Oct. 1833-Jan. 1834), “The Universe and Its Author”

(St. Armand), in which appears this suggestive passage: “[T]he time appears to have newly arrived, when science and conviction ought to walk hand in hand with faith.” The context of the passage suggests a close tie to Eureka, because the au¬ thor argues that science is about to confirm faith. There is, however, a notable difference; the Quarterly Review article is somewhat more religiously literal than is Eureka. St. Armand argues that the eight “Bridgewater Treatises” provided much of the philosophical frame for Eureka, that, indeed, Eureka can be understood as “an uncommissioned ninth Bridgewater Thesis.” (“In 1829 the Rev. Francis Hen¬ ry, Eighth Earl of Bridgewater, left £8,000 pounds to the British Royal Society for the purpose of commissioning ... a book ‘On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation’” [St. Armand, “Seemingly Intuitive Leaps,” 9]. Eight books, not just one, resulted. Mark Twain had the final word on the matter in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, wherein “the rightful Duke of Bridgewa¬ ter” is transmuted into “Bilgewater.”) For more on Poe’s use of these books, see K1 g8nn ff. Interestingly, a section inj. S. Mill’s A System of Logic, which Poe used in Eureka, also mentions the “Bridgewater Treatise” [sic]. See notes to paragraphs 13, 17, and 18. Poe’s “Marginalia” item 18 is on the failure of the Bridgewater Treatises to notice “the great idiosyncrasy in the Divine system of adaptation,” namely, “the complete mutuality of adaptation.” A note to that item traces repeti¬ tions of Poe’s remarks in different contexts (Collected Writings, 2:127-28). BRP suggests comparing “The Body and The Soul"as, walking hand in hand with “I roamed with my Soul” in line 12 of Poe’s poem “Ulalume” (1847) (Collected Works, 1:416). 134 “Cosmogony”: The term refers to the study of the origin of the universe. (It is contrasted to “cosmology,” which is the study of philosophical constructs deal¬ ing with laws governing the universe.) Laplace, in fact, did not concern himself with such basic questions as why matter was present to begin with, matter, that is, to form the star from which his model generates the rest of the solar system. Poe quibbles because his argument in Eureka includes the history of matter itself. Laplace: In Exposition du systeme du monde (1796) Pierre Simon, Marquis de Laplace (see K77n) presented the “Nebular Hypothesis,” which sought “to give scientific form to a theory originally propounded by Swedenborg and Kant.” Laplace’s Mecanique analytique (1799-1825) helped provide incontrovertible mathematical proof of Newton’s gravitational hypothesis (Poe, The Science Fic¬ tion of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 4o8n). 135 Poe is saying that if one accepts the law of gravity, Laplace’s work is correct. Laplace visualized a vast gas cloud. As it collapsed, it rotated faster. (This model

•140-

NOTES TO PAGES 55-57 “works”—visualize an ice skater spinning. Skaters spin faster as they concentrate their bodies at the center of a spin, spreading their limbs and bending their bod¬ ies to slow.) Two principles explain the phenomenon: the conservation of an¬ gular momentum and gravity. The paragraphs that follow are Poe’s summary of Laplace. Laplace figured that as the sun collapsed and accelerated, the spinning would leave behind material in the shape of a disk from which planets would eventually form. Laplace’s scheme is felt today to be basically correct, although he ignored too many details for it to work mathematically. The sun, for instance, is not spinning nearly fast enough to match Laplace’s visualization. In a letter to Charles E Hoffman of September 20, 1848, Poe wrote that Eure¬ ka gave “Laplace’s theory in full” and spoke of his “firm conviction of its absolute

truth at all points. ”He next pointed out—correctly—that his work dealt with a broader subject: “The ground covered by the great French astronomer compares with that covered by my theory, as a bubble compares with the ocean on which it floats” (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 408; Poe, Letters of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Ostrom, 2:379-82, esp. 380). Poe’s letter reacts to misrep¬

resentations in Hoffman’s review of Eureka. 137 The mass. . . . the mass: Nichol (Views of Astronomy, Lecture 5, p. 29) contains a passage very close to this (Hodgens typescript). Poe does not quote; perhaps he paraphrases, or both follow a common source. Hodgens notes that Nichol him¬ self leans here on his own book, The Views of the Architecture of the Heavens. 138 non-increasing: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 32). —just as . . . presented: another passage very close to Nichol (Views of Astronomy, Lecture 5, p. 30) and, like the one in paragraph 137, dependent in turn on Nichol’s Views of the Architecture of the Heavens (Hodgens typescript). caoutchouc: rubber. 140 and Poe’s handwritten note to it: Poe tried to make his work very timely. Neptune had only been discovered in 1846. Nichol gave it a good deal of attention in his lecture course; in the fifth lecture, he said that it had two moons. So had said also the May 1848 Fraser’s Magazine (TOM, notes). (Yet the second moon, Nereid, was not discovered until 1949.) Triton should have caused Poe some difficulty in his amplification of Laplace’s model, for it moves in a direction opposite to the orbit¬ al direction of the planet around the sun. The second moon mentioned in Nichol is probably the result of an unconfirmed sighting. Triton, the innermost moon, was discovered in 1846. Perhaps Nichol confused Neptune with Uranus, which was known to have two moons that went in the “right” direction. Partial rings of Nep¬ tune were not discovered until 1983. Information available in 1848 was somewhat ambiguous. Such details are not basic, however, to the theory of the formation of the solar system that Poe was illustrating. 141 spherification: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 37).

•l4l-

NOTES TO PAGES 59-60 147 As of 2002, planets and moons in the solar system are: Mercury, none; Venus, none; Earth, one moon; Mars, two moons (Deimos and Phobus); Jupiter, thirtynine moons, most of them retrograde; there are also rings. Saturn has twenty-eight moons, at least one retrograde, in addition to rings; Uranus has twenty-one moons, five retrograde; and Neptune has eight moons, one retrograde, and more are likely. Pluto, not discovered until 1930, has one moon (Charon). 149 Uranus: Poe has the right answer; see his note below. Uranus is tilted. It turns on its axis like other planets, but we see it almost pole-on. Its satellites, then, spin in that odd orbital plane. There is thus a relationship between the way a planet spins and the way its moons do; it tells the observer that the moons were not “cap¬ tured” but rather thrown off during the planet’s own formation. Poe might be leaning on Nichol here. As Hodgens (typescript) and BRP note, the same infor¬ mation and argument appear in Lecture 5 (p. 27) of Nichol’s Views of Astronomy. bouleversement (in Poe’s note): The French word means “somersault.” The note

is essentially correct. Poe’s alteration (in the 1848 text the word was inclination) might be an evasion. A little unsure of himself, he perhaps substituted a word that is more obscure, less precise (“inclination” isjust right) and has humorous associations for him. It is in his 1835 burlesque tale “The Unparalleled Adven¬ ture of One Hans Pfaall” (Collected Writings, 1:422, t:486n), which deals with a balloon voyage to the moon. See also his use of it in “The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.” (Thirty-Two Stories, 301; Short Fiction, 387, 425, Collected Works, 3:1144). Poe seems to have had that story in mind as he wrote this portion of Eureka; see our note to paragraph 122.

151 the finger of Deity itself: If one examined only one area of the universe, there would be no way to account for angular momentum without postulating some sort of “finger of God” to get “tangential velocity” started. In the larger view, apparent angular momentum in one sector will be counterbalanced by counter¬ acting momentum far off. See note to paragraph 153, “rotation . . . aggregadon.” 151-53

Poe mocks the idea of divine intervention but retains it in the “one prima¬

ry exercise of the Divine volition,” a view logically compatible with, although dif¬ ferent in tone from, the familiar idea that when physics progresses far enough, “God will turn out to be a formula.” Poe intends more, as the next sentence explains, for his God is also all matter. God not only wills the primal pardcle into expansion but also is the particle. Thus Poe reconciles spirit with matter, or, to put it differently, tries to provide a physics for spirituality. God “became all things at once,” so all parts of the universe are God. The beliefs of occuldsts and ad¬ herents of numerous Oriental, tribal, and mystical religions approximate this; often for such believers the goal of human life is attainment of full realization of one’s own divinity. This is conceivable because one’s matter is also the matter of the godhead. Related concepts in eastern religious thought attracted Tran¬ scendental writers such as Emerson to the Orient. Poe is philosophically often close to the Transcendentalists he professed to scorn; his ideas are spelled out

•142-

NOTES TO PAGES 61-63 explicitly in his fiction, although sometimes with humor and even satiric under¬ cutting of the ideas themselves. Eureka retains both doctrine and satire. For ex¬ tended discussion of Poe’s paradoxical attitudes toward Transcendentalism, see Levine, Edgar Poe, 151—68, esp. 162. For the source of Poe’s phrase “the finger of God,” see Luke 11:20. 152 Nature . . . Nature: BRP points to the phrase in the letter from Henry St.John, Viscount of Bolingbroke (1687-1751) to Alexander Pope: “One follows Nature and Nature’s God; that is, he follows God in his works and in his word.” One thinks also of Pope’s “Epitaphs Intended for Sir Isaac Newton” (1730): “Nature, and Nature’s laws lay hid in night: / God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.” Poe would have known it from Jefferson, for the Declaration of Independence (1776) speaks of “the laws of nature and of Nature’s God.” 153 rotation . . . aggregation: Poe’s scheme is not too far removed from one widely believed in 2002. If the “Big Bang” theory of how the universe began is correct, it is assumed that turbulence would be the source of angular momentum. The analogy given by astronomy teachers is the behavior of water going downstream. Angular momentum is the result of the interaction of the pressure of the gas cloud against its own gravitational pull. The unevenness (“lumpy-ness”) of the gas cloud would be sufficient to start the whirling. imparticularity: See paragraph 45. 155 that our Moon is self-luminous: The perils of doing astronomy by what Profes¬ sor Hill in The Music Man called the “Think System.” The moon is not luminous. Poe, however, is probably just repeating Nichol, who said in Views of Astronomy, Lecture 7, p. 40, that the moon gives off light of its own (TOM, notes; Hodgens typescript). See also Pollin (Poe: Creator of Words, 63), who lists “self-luminous” as Poe’s coinage. total eclipse: During a lunar eclipse, the earth blocks the sun. The moon appears reddish at such times, because some light coming through the earth’s atmo¬ sphere does get to the moon. flashes: There are no “flashes” during a lunar eclipse. Reports of them might be the result of observer error. Or Poe might have his eclipses confused. When there is a solar eclipse (the moon between earth and sun), there is a phenom¬ enon called “Bailey’s beads,” bright “beads” of light visible at the moment the light of the reemerging sun breaks through the rough edges of the lunar land¬ scape. Auroras: These are believed to be the result of the interaction of solar discharg¬ es (sunspots) with atmosphere. The moon does not have them. 156 Auroras: There are auroras on Venus because it has an atmosphere. BRP sug¬ gests comparison with Poe’s poem “Ulalume” (1847): “Astarte’s bediamonded crescent, / Distinct with its duplicate horn” (Collected Works, 1:417, 11:37-38). “Astarte” is Venus; see also ibid., 1:422.

•143-

NOTES TO PAGES 63-65 157 Melville islands . . . vegetation: Melville Island is in the Timor Sea, sixteen miles off the northwestern coast of Australia. Beaver (409) speculates that the name may have come to Poe because of the popularity of Herman Melville’s two “ultratropical” novels of South Seas adventure, Typee (1846) and Omoo (1847) (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 409). Poe’s immediate source,

however, is the newspaper account of Nichol’s seventh lecture, in which he speaks of “ultra-tropical vegetation” on Melville and Bathurst islands (TOM, notes). Hodgens notes that Poe here repeats an error in Nichol (Lecture 7, p. 40): “Nichol is referring to Melville Island, not islands” (Hodgens typescript). whirling-off: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 69). 159 In speaking: The book Eureka retains many characteristics of Poe’s lecture on “The Universe,” which, in BRP’s phrase, it “closely represents.” See the Introduc¬ tion for contemporary newspaper accounts of what Poe said. 160 the succession of animals on the Earth: Loosely evolutionary ideas were common among educated people in the half century before Charles Darwin. Emerson, for example, used evolution as an example of an “obvious” relationship in chapter 5 of Nature (1836). He speaks of “resemblances ... in things whose analogy is obvious, as when we detect the type of the human hand in the flipper of the fossil saurus.” The idea that evolution, whatever its cause, may produce not only new but also “better” creatures and people is interesting to encounter in Poe, who in general scoffed at the meliorist assumptions of most intellectuals of his era. Poe’s story “Mellonta Tauta” heavily overlaps Eureka; Poe used a good deal of the same prose in both pieces. But “Mellonta Tauta” mocks the idea of progress of any sort. Pundita, its narrator, is contemptuous of the nineteenth century, but her own age, far in the future, is no wiser. A passage in Nichol (Views of Astrono¬ my, Lecture 6, pp. 36-37) is a likely source for the idea that evolution on Earth

is tied to the development of the solar system, though Poe carried the idea fur¬ ther (Hodgens typscript). Hodgens notes, correctly, that not many stages are available in Poe’s scheme: “There were just two discharges after Earth’s—those of Venus and Mercury.” BRP adds “that improvement here comes through solar and planetary changes, not man’s technological advances.” vitalic: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 40). BRP adds, “The seeming coinage . . . [here and in paragraph 214], ascribed to Poe by the OED, must reflect the widespread school of Vitalism, of French origin in the late eighteenth century, overturned in the next century (see “Physiology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 1 ith ed., 21:554). 161 Comte: Auguste Comte (1798-1857). His Traite d'astrononue populaire was pub¬ lished in Paris in 1845. Beaver (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, 409) thinks that Poe knew Compte’s Cours de philosophic positive (1830-42) through Sir David Brewster’s review in 1838 of a two-volume Paris edition (1830-35) in the Edinburgh Review. A serious and solid essay, this is the lead article in the July 1838 issue (36:271-308). It covers covers the sorts of connections between phys-

• 1 4 4 •

NOTES TO PAGE 66 ical science and worldview with which Poe is concerned. See esp. 2976, where Brewster shows Comte summarizing Laplace and suggesting yet another way of verifying his hypothesis. 162 the Cloud-Land of Metaphysics: BRP notices that Poe uses the same phrase in “The Rationale of Verse” (para. 2). BRP also recalls “Cloudland” in Coleridge. In “Fancy in Nubibus, or the Poet in the Clouds” (1817), Coleridge wrote of making “the shifting clouds be what you please” (1. 3) in the evening sky, and of imagining “a traveller go / From mount to mount through Cloudland, gorgeous land!” (1. 9) {The Complete Poetical Works, ed. E. H. Coleridge, 1:435). See also Collected Writings, 2:66 and 2:255 (“Pinakidia,” item 100, and “Marginalia,” item

147) for a possible tie to Aristophanes’ “The Clouds.” Each deals with the ques¬ tion of whether “The Clouds” contained rhyme. 163 unfounded opinion . . . overthrown: Poe is correct; indeed, Laplace was not only challenged but actually fell into disfavor later in the nineteenth century (Kaufmann, Exploration of the Solar System, 516). the large telescope of Cincinnati: “This magnificent telescope, one of the larg¬ est and most perfect in the world, was made at the Frauenhofer Institute, Mu¬ nich, by Mssrs. Mertz & Mahler.” Provided with a clockwork mechanism that a single observer could operate, it weighed about 2,500 pounds, had a focal length of roughly 17 ‘/a feet, an object-glass 12 inches diameter, and a magnifying power of from 100 to 1,400 x. The tone of contemporary accounts suggests why Poe could assume his listeners or readers would know of it; it was considered one of the marvels of the age: “This stupendous instrument, mounted on a stone ped¬ estal of great strength and graceful figure, rises, when directed at the zenith, some 20 feet above the floor of the room in which it is located.” The whole was located on a high hill above the Ohio River in a building whose walls were on wheels mounted on railroad tracks for easy movement. (Cist, Sketches and Statis¬ tics, 108.)

Lord Rosse: William Parsons, Earl of Rosse (1800-1867), was one °f the first to see that there were other galaxies. His telescope had great resolution. Rosse’s discoveries did, in fact, cause controversy for a century (see f 213 and its notes). Details on Poe’s probable source for this information and on his other use of it are in Collected Writings, 1:497-98. the appearance of nebulosity: At this stage of astronomical history, “nebulae” meant any fuzzy-looking object. A modern definition is “any non-point source of light in the sky” (Twarog). Twarog explains that distance is critical. The debate in that era was “Are all galaxies the same sort of object?” Rosse could see that some nearby galaxies were just clusters of stars and guessed that distant fuzzy objects with extended spiral features were galaxies, too. Rosse had seen stars in M51 and in the nebula in Orion. That nebula does not have a well-defined shape: One sees an extended gas cloud in which some stars are embedded. Rosse had no way to resolve stars

• 1 4 5 ’

NOTE TO PAGE 68 in extra-galactic nebulae. The “Orion nebulosity” today refers to the gas sur¬ rounding the stars; any blobs Rosse saw were the star-clusters. Stars were not resolved in extra-galactic nebulae until the twentieth century. Poe, then, merely repeats an error of his age, that better telescopes would show nebulae to be gal¬ axies. nebulists: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 32). the great “nebula” . . . stars: The object Poe names was not one that better tele¬ scopes could resolve into a “simple collection of stars.” It was obviously a gas cloud, although there are some stars associated with it. Better telescopes have since enabled astronomers to determine that some “fuzzy objects” are gas clouds, some are, in fact, galaxies, and others are a mixture of both. letter (in the note): Poe refers apparendy to Nichol’s book, Views of the Architec¬ ture of the Heavens, the subtitle of which is In a Series of Letters to a Lady. The first

American edition, “Republished from the last London and Edinburgh editions to which has [sic] been added notes and a glossary &c by the American Publish¬ ers,” appeared in New York (A. H. Chapin & Co.) in 1840. Dr. N. . . . hypothetical (in the note): Hodgens (typscript) locates the passage in Nichol’s Lecture 5 (Views of Astronomy, p. 29): “The audience will perceive that these [Laplace’s] are two great hypotheses, but we must begin with hypotheses. No calculation or deduction can ever enable the human race to track back our System to its origin. This being the case I would have the audience observe that laplace’s system rests entirely upon hypothesis. It is a hypothetical Cosmogony.”

the late experiments of Comte (in the note): Comte worked out a mathemati¬ cal means to verily Laplace’s theory of how the solar system was formed. As Brew¬ ster’s review of Comte (see f 16m) put it, the question to be answered was “what was the duration of the rotation of the sun when the mathematical limit of his [the sun’s] atmosphere extended to the different planets?” Comte tried his equa¬ tion first on the relationship of the earth and moon. It worked; the “periodic time” of the moon “agrees within less than the tenth of a day with the duration which the revolution of the earth ought to have had at the time when the lunar distance formed the limit of our atmosphere” (299). Maskelyne (in the note): See paragraph 62m 165 the primary processes of Creation: Astronomers today do, in fact, attempt to observe at least the early results of “the primary processes” of creation; echoes of the “Big Bang” still resonate. Data gathered from a great distance are data from greatest antiquity, a principle Poe fully understands—see, for instance, paragraph 167, in which he says that the “processes” we observe today are “but the phantoms of processes completed long in the Past.” Attempts to reconstruct the physics and chemistry of the new universe use such data. nebulosity: First recorded with this meaning in Herschel’s Astronomy (1833) (BRP; OED). Poe repeats it in paragraph 168.

•146-

NOTES TO PAGES 68-71 166 hoary. . . age: Poe again echoes his own fiction. In “MS. Found in a Bottle,” a very early (1833) tale (Thirty-Two Stories, 16-25; Short.Fiction, 622, 623-29, 63031; Collected Works, 2:143), he speaks of the sailors on board a ghost ship (he has in mind the Flying Dutchman) as follows: “They all bore about them the marks of a hoary old age.” The connection in his mind is the projection of the past into the present. The Dutchman is doomed to sail for eternity. 167 Mass-constitutive: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 56). 169 rendering . . . Caesar’s: Matthew 22:21 (BRP). 170 valid objections. . . . establish: Poe is correct. For Laplace’s system to work, mat¬ ter must be distributed in lumps rather than evenly. Laplace postulates the lump¬ iness but does not attempt to account for it; he merely “goes from there” (Twarog). That is not Laplace’s error; it is more accurate to say, as Poe implies, that Laplace was not particularly concerned with the problem. 171 Epicurean atoms: The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270

b.c.e.)

was a fol¬

lower of Democritus in the matter of atoms. How close Eureka is to Poe’s fiction is suggested by the passage in which Epicurus is mentioned in “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841) (Thirty-Two Stories, 38-391111; Short Fiction, 181, 24509; Collected Works, 2:535), a passage, incidentally, in which Poe’s detective, Dupin,

is explaining how the mind proceeds via associations—exacdy the process that for Poe connects the nebula in Orion with atomism and with the nebular cos¬ mogony of Laplace. “I knew,” Dupin says to the narrator, “that you could not say to yourself ‘stereotomy’ without being brought to think of atomies, and thus of the theories of Epicurus; and since ... I mentioned to you how . . . the vague guesses of that noble Greek had met with confirmation in the late nebular cos¬ mogony, I felt that you could not avoid casting your eyes upward to the great nebula in Orion.” See also the note to paragraph 49.

inacumen: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 29). 172 the ring. . . . distances: Poe’s imaginative elaboration of Laplace alters Laplace, who never said that all the rings existed at once as rings. Indeed, Laplace never explained how planets condensed from rings at all. Poe here tries to invent a physical mechanism to explain what Laplace never tackled. Poe’s theory is “pure numerology” (Twarog). See also “Postscript to a Letter about ‘Eureka,’” note to paragraph 2. 173 seventeen planets: Poe counts the known planets and asteroids. See notes on Poe’s revisions of Eureka: the 1848 edition had sixteen. a number. . . systems: BRP writes, “G. P. Kuiper authoritatively postulated that through the contracting nebulosities of all the galaxies, 1 out of 100 form plan¬ etary systems like ours, numbering 109 (Ency. Brit., i960, 6:501, ‘Cosmogony’).” For poetic accounts of the creation of planets, see the last stanza of Poe’s poem “Ulalume” (1847) (Collected Works, 1:418-19) or “The Power of Words” (1845) (Thirty-Two Stories, 318-22; Short Fiction, 114-16; Collected Works, 3:1211-15).

•147-

NOTES TO PAGES 72-73 (note): Asimilar thought appears in Nichol, Views of Astronomy, Lecture 5, p. 28 (Hodgens typescript). 174 Titanic: An unusual and clever use of the word. As the Titans were primal giants in Greek mythology, so these atoms are a primal form of cosmic matter. McAAovta Tania: “Those things that are to be,” or, as Poe translated it, “These things are in the future.” (The Greek in Eurekawas printed without accents.) Poe quotes the reply of the messenger to Creon at the end of Sophocles’ Antigone (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words). Poe used the quotation in two stories: as a motto added to the 1845 version of his apocalyptic tale “The Colloquy of Monos and Una” and as the title of his satiric fantasy about the distant future, “Mellonta Tauta.” Since large portions of “Mellonta Tauta” are shared with Eureka (see notes ft iff.), Poe’s use of the Greek quotation again here once more closely links Eureka with his fiction (see also 1[i6on). It is likely that Poe’s immediate source

was Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s Ernest Maltravers (1837) (TOM, notes), where it appears as a motto for Book g: “These things are in the Future.” See Collected Writings, 2:180; 2:257, 2:259, 2:378, for Poe’s other uses of this book and the

index to that volume for other levies on Bulwer. 175 unequably, with clusters: See note to paragraph 153 and also paragraph 50. Poe’s universe contracts (see f 174); modern astronomers believe it expands. In both, however, matter is distributed somewhat unevenly. 177 We have no reason . . . “nebulae”: Poe’s statement is correct and matches the dominant theory that the earth’s location in the universe is not “special,” that data about our environment are probably average. There is a theological issue here, of course, the “Copernican principle” that once one moves man from the center of the universe, all other religious accounts of reality will collapse as well. 178 we must picture. . . . capital Y: Poe follows Humboldt’s Cosmos closely here: “The stellar milky way . . . constitutes ... an annulus, that is to say an independent zone, somewhat remote from our lenticular-shaped starry stratum, and similar to Saturn’s ring. . . . Our planetary system lies in an eccentric [“excentric” in Maddison, “Poe’s Eurekasee “excentrically” below] direction nearer to the re¬ gion of the Cross than to the diametrically opposite point, Cassiopeia.” (Hum¬ boldt, Cosmos [ 1849 ed.], 1, 141. We follow the 1849 London edition translated by Elise C. Otte. See notes to paragraphs 9 and 231, and esp. 232.) Maddison refers to the same edition but omits the ellipsis after “constitutes,” spells “annu¬ lus” with one n, and spells “eccentric” as “excentric,” probably confused by Poe’s spelling. (TOM, notes, following Carol Hopkins Maddison). As a matter of fact, Humboldt’s view was advanced for the date; our location was not known to be near the edge of the galaxy until 1917. Poe’s description of the shape of the galaxy seems reasonably close to the modern image of a spiral. Spiral galaxies are disks (lenticular objects) that have, superimposed on them, spiral structure. A modern composite picture of the galaxy (Berman and Evans, Exploring the Cosmos, 334-35) shows dark regions caused by interstellar dust (dust-lanes in the

•148-

NOTE TO PAGE 74 spiral arms of the galaxy). Poe’s “gash” is such a dark region. A diagram clarifies the relationship between the FPoe visualizes, the spiral, and lenticular shape. Imagine a “top view” of a galaxy shaped like Saturn:

annulus

Although Poe was not above padding a work with extraneous information culled from reference works, the passage is germane: in it, he is addressing the issue of the roughly equal distribution of matter. star-island: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 87). excentrically: Pollin (Word Index) shows that Poe usually spelled this work eccen¬ trically, and we initially thought to change it to conform with his usual practice.

BRP suggested, however, that Poe might have been following a source, possibly Rees’s Cyclopaedia (Abraham Rees, Cyclopaedia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sci¬ ences, and Literatures [London, 1802-19]). In the portions of Rees we examined,

BRP’s surmise was correct. Rees consistendy spells the word “exc.” See, for exam¬ ple, the article “Steam Engine,” in the 1972 facsimile reprinting of only the en¬ tries on engineering and manufacturing topics, Neil Cossons, ed., Rees’s Manu¬ facturing Industry. Another source, John F. W. Herschel, also was in the habit of

using “exc”; we noticed it in his Outlines of Astronomy. 179 Maddison says that Poe’s language here again is close to that of Humboldt, and points to Cosmos (1:72~73) in the London, 1845 edition (see notes to K178n and f 232). Here, for comparison, is a portion of the passage from Cosmos. Like Poe’s, it deals with visualizing earth’s position in the Milky Way. Plainly, however, Poe was not copying. See also paragraph 209 and note. In the direction of the longer axis, where the stars lie behind one another, the more remote ones appear closely crowded together, united, as it were, by a milky-white radiance, or luminous vapour, and are perspectively grouped, encircling as in a zone the visible vault of heaven. This narrow and branched

•149-

NOTES TO PAGES 74-75 girdle, studded with radiant light, and here and there interrupted by dark spots, deviates only by a few degrees from forming a perfect large circle round the concave sphere of heaven, owing to our being near the centre of the large starry cluster, and almost on the plane of the Milky Way. If our planetary sys¬ tem were far outside this cluster, the Milky Way would appear to telescopic vi¬ sion as a ring, and at a still greater distance as a resolvable discoidal nebula. Humboldt is correct that the Milky Way looks equally bright in all directions (even though our sun is near the edge of its ring). Humboldt (and Poe) did not know that this is merely because interstellar dust prevents us from seeing more than about a thousand parsecs in any direction in the plane of the galaxy. With only that range of vision, one gets the notion that one is in the center; one cannot see either to the near edge or to the distant edge. Instead, one sees a thousand parsecs of stars in either direction. Our galaxy is nearly ten times larger than nine¬ teenth-century astronomers could envisage, and our sun is nearer to the edge than Humboldt thought. A chart to aid in visualizing the matter appears on page 3 of Mihalas and Binney, Galactic Astronomy. For Poe’s earlier knowledge of Hum¬ boldt, see paragraph gn and his story “Hans Pfaall” (see f tqgn), especially Col¬ lected Writings, (1:402, 1:474, 26e). BRP thinks that “lenticular shaped” comes from Herschel, Treatise on Astronomy, para. 626. See also the note to paragraph 178.

180 space-. . . power: BRP notes that although he ascribed it as a coinage to Poe (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 65), he now finds that it has “another significant paternity. The OED lists it for the 1799 Philosophical Transactions, but more to the present point, it returned to Poe’s texts in 1846, after its use in ‘Hans Pfaall,’ through the intermediation of a third popularizing text by Thomas Dick, his Practical Astronomer (England, 1845; Harpers, 1846).” Poe was relying on John

Herschel’s Treatise on Astronomy, an often-reprinted text of 1833 (America, 1834). Dick’s several uses (Christian Philosopher, 298, 299, 302) broughtitto Poe’sawareness for “The Literati” papers and Eureka. It also helps prove that Poe relied on the third of Dick’s science-made-easy texts (see note to 1198). 181 Were the succession. ... is so: Poe gives an accurate statement of what astrono¬ mers call “Olbers’ paradox,” referring to a theory argued by Heinrich Olbers in 1823: if the universe were infinite in extent, the night sky should be white. At any point at which we looked there would be at least one star, so that there would be no black background anywhere. A passage in Nichol, Views of Astronomy, Lec¬ ture 1, pp. 6-7, makes the same point (Hodgens typescript). But, as Poe says, even if the universe were infinite in size, we would only see light that has had time to reach us. Modem cosmology uses fifteen billion years as a rough estimate of the age of the universe, so were there stars more than fifteen billion light-years away, people on earth would not be able to see them. The sky would still seem black. Because we conceive of the universe as finite because of the curvature of space, however, the question is academic at present (Twarog).

•150-

NOTES TO PAGES 75-79 182 Erebus: Mt. Erebus, an active Antarctic volcano discovered and named in 1841 by Sir James Clark Ross, whose explorations were reported in an Edinburgh Re¬ view article mentioned by Poe (Complete Works, 8:87). Poe alludes to it in his poem

“Ulalume—A Ballad (1847), calling it “Yaanek,” a name he apparently coined, for it is not in standard geographical sources: These were days when my heart was volcanic As the scoriae rivers that roll— As the lavas that restlessly roll Their sulphurous currents down Yaanek, In the ultimate climes of the Pole— That groan as they roll down Mount Yaanek, In the realms of the Boreal Pole. {Collected Works, 1:415-19, 1:416)

In mythology, Erebus, son of Chaos, begot Aether and Elemera (Day) by Nux (Night), his sister. The name signifies darkness and is applied to the dark space through which the shades pass into Hades. Poe uses it also in “The Spectacles” (1844) {Collected Works, 3:897; Short Fiction, 337, 34909). perpetual variation: Poe is wrong, in fact, for dark voids are areas of cosmic dust, and matter is, for all practical purposes, distributed evenly in the solar neighbor¬ hood. Only “local” bodies—those within the solar system—exert more than negli¬ gible force. One wonders, however, why, even before cosmic dust was known, Poe bothered to fuss with the gravitational pull of distant stars when he had the easily discemable tug of the moon at hand to make his point (Twarog). Perhaps he was attracted to the idea because of his general sense of the interconnectedness of all things— the same impulse which is behind his story “The Power of Words” (1845) (Collected Works, 3:1211-15; Thirty-Two Stories, 318-22; Short Fiction, 107-8, 114-16). 185 phantom . . . idea: Poe says in paragraph 29 that infinity “is by no means the ex¬ pression of an idea—but of an effort at one. It stands for the possible attempt at an impossible conception.” In paragraph 37, he says that infinity “belongs ... to the class representing thoughts of thought. ’’See paragraphs 29—39. 187 Each . . . God: Extended discussion of philosophical precedent for Poe’s vision of multiple gods appears in the Introduction. 1 go This paragraph is a correct restatement of what are now known as Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion (Twarog). radius vector: The term had long been standard; the OED lists usage from 1753:

“A variable line drawn to a curve from a fixed point as origin; in astronomy the origin is usually at the sun or a planet around which a satellite revolves.” 191 moon-attended: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 57). immortal laws guessed_“guess-work”: See paragraph 23 and note. Poe is right about Kepler and Newton only in the most general sense (Twarog), though his

• 1

5 1 •

NOTE TO PAGE 80 feeling that guessing has been important in the development of science is sound. Poe expanded on this point in a letter to Charles Fenno Hoffman. See paragraph 135 note. Plato . . . Alcmaeon: Poe’s statement is a play on a passage from Cicero’s “Tusculan Disputations” (1:39, TOM): “Errare mehercule malo cumPlatone, . . . quamcum istis vera sentire” (By Hercules, I prefer to err with Plato,. . . than to think the truth

with “those”). “Those” refers to the Pythagoreans in general. Cicero does not name Alcmaeon (see next item), but Alcmaeon was a Pythagorean. Alcmaeon was a native of Crotona in the sixth century b.c.e., a pupil of Pythago¬ ras. His On Nature (ca. 500

b.c.e.)

may be the first work on natural philosophy.

He argued that the gods alone had certain knowledge; men could, however, conjecture. Poe alluded to him in a satire on bad writing, “How to Write a Black¬ wood Article,” in a passage in which “Mr. Blackwood” advises the aspiring but incompetent Signora Psyche Zenobia to stuff her writing with irrelevant but learned-seeming allusions: “The tone metaphysical is also a good one. If you know any big words this is your chance for them. Talk of the Ionic and Eleatic schools— of Archytas, Gorgias, and Alcmaeon” {Thirty-Two Stories, 74, 74nio; Short Fiction, 360,415010; Collected Works, 2:341, 2:359018). Poe had thought creatively about bad writing and knew of other authors who had as well. See Levine and Levine, “‘How to’ Satire.” 193 distance. ... 28 hundred millions: Modem figures are always given in kilometers: Earth to moon, 384,500 kilometers (ca. 238,928 miles, using 1 kilometer = .6214 miles). Distances from sun in 106 kilometers: Mercury, 57.9 (35,970,600); Ve¬ nus, 108.2 (67,235,480); Earth, 149.6 (92,588,600); Mars, 227.9 (141,617,060); Jupiter, 778.3 (438,635,620); Saturn, 1427.0 (886,737,800); Uranus, 2871.0 (1,784,039,400); Neptune, 4497.1

(2,749,497,900); and Pluto, 5913.5

(3>674>338>2oo). the nine Asteroids . .. and: Astraea actually had been discovered just in 1845; its discovery set off a boom in asteroid sighting. A ninth was found in April 1848 and named Higeia (Twarog). By 2002 more than twenty thousand asteroids had been named, among them asteroids called for our consultant, Bruce Twarog, and his astronomer wife, Barbara. Neptune: Discovered only in 1846, the planet was still news in 1848. It had been noticed that the transit of Uranus was irregular. Astronomers hypothesized that the gravitational pull of another planet must be the cause. John Couch Adams in England and Urbainjeanjoseph Leverrier in France did the necessary math¬ ematics in 1845 to predict its location, and Johann Gottfried Galle in 1846 found it exactly there. The first satellite, Triton, was detected a month later (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 410-11042).

May not. . . radiation ?: Hodgens (typescript) suggests that Poe here responds to a challenge posed in Nichol {Views of Astronomy, Lecture 4, p. 25): “Now the or¬ igin of Bode’s law is entirely unknown: it is what is called an empirical law, be-

•152-

NOTES TO PAGES 80-81 cause we do not understand the principle upon which it acts.” Poe’s explanation is nonsense. As of 2004 there was still no fully satisfactory explanation of the law (Twarog). Bode: Johann Elert Bode (1747-1826), an important compiler of astronomical statistics and founder in 1774 of the Astronomische Jahrbuch. A formula for what Poe called the “order of in terval among the planets” goes by his name, though it had earlier been noticed by Kepler, and announced by Johann Daniel Titius in 1772. One gets a rough estimate of the “order of interval” by writing a series of 4s; adding (in order) o, 3, 6, 12, 24 (o for Mercury, then 3 for Venus); and dou¬ bling the number for each planet outward (TOM, notes; Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 411). This empirical law is called the Titius-Bode

Law. 194 There are . . . ocean: Poe plays to his American audience, flattering readers with an unwarranted assumption about their experience as travelers. He also enjoyed implying that he himself knew Europe well; see his stories “The Assignation” (1834) and “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841), for example. Thirty-Two Stories (26, 130—31) and Short Fiction, 471, 153) explain the real sources of Poe’s

“expertise” about Venice and Paris. It is in fact unlikely that, after a childhood sojourn in England (1815-20), he ever left the United States. Sound passes. . . . latter: Poe’s figures are good approximations. Calling the speed of sound roughly 1,100 feet per second gives a speed of sound of 750 m.p.h. (the contemporary figure at sea level is 1,087 feet Per second, about 741 m.p.h.). Sound from the moon—were there an atmospheric carrier—would arrive in 13.1667 days, less about a second and a quarter to allow for the light to arrive. 198 If we ascend. . . . general survey: In these and subsequent paragraphs, Poe leans very heavily on Thomas Dick’s The Christian Philosopher: or, The Connection of Sci¬ ence and Philosophy with Religion (Glasgow, 1823) (Alterton, Origins, 139-40).

There were a number of subsequent editions, some pirated. We follow a New York edition (Solomon King, 1831). For comparison, here is the equivalent paragraph in Dick, from his chapter “Omnipotence of the Deity”: Were we to take our station on the top of a mountain, of a moderate size, and survey the surrounding landscape, we should perceive an extent of view stretching 40 miles in every direction, forming a circle 80 miles in diameter, and 250 in circumference, and comprehending an area of 5,000 square miles. In such a situation, the terrestrial scene around and beneath us—consisting of hills and plains, towns and villages, rivers and lakes—would form one of the largest objects which the eye, or even the imagination, can steadily grasp at one time. But such an object, grand and extensive as it is, forms no more than the forty thousandth part of the terraqueous globe; . . . were a scene, of the magnitude now stated, to pass before us every hour, until all the diver¬ sified scenery of the earth were brought under our view, and were twelve hours a-day allotted for the observation, it would require nine years and forty-eight

•15 3-

NOTES TO PAGES 82-83 days before the whole surface of the globe could be contemplated, even in this general and rapid manner. (Alterton, Origins, 139* quoting Dick, 17) successiveness: The OED gives a 1676 usage, thenjames Mill’s 1829 “Human Mind

whence Poe may have derived it,” although “Poe’s Italics often indicate his be¬ lief that he is coining a new word” (BRP). See Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 16. Dick was, like the authors of the “Bridgewater Treatises,” a “populizer” (St. Armand, “Seemingly Intuidve Leaps,” 12), trying to show how science could confirm faith. See paragraph 133 note for further discussion of the impact of these works on Eureka. 199 Here is the paragraph in Dick from which Poe obtained both his idea and his data (Alterton, Origins, 139): The earth contains a mass of matter equal in weight to at least 2,200,000,000,000,000,000,000, or more than 2 thousand trillions of tons, supposing its mean density to be only about 21/2 times greater than water. To move this ponderous mass, a single inch beyond its position, were it fixed in a quiescent state, would require a mechanical force almost beyond the power of numbers to express. The physical force of all the myriads of intel¬ ligences within the bounds of the planetary system, though their powers were far superior to those of men would be altogether inadequate to the production of such a motion. See paragraph 201 note. 201 The diameter. . . . circumference: Another illustration taken from Dick, this from his chapter “The Solar System”: “Of this system, the

sun

is the center and the

animating principle. . . . This vast globe is found to be about 880,000 miles in diameter. . . . Were its central parts placed adjacent to the surface of the earth, its circumference would reach two hundred thousand miles beyond the moon’s orbit, on every side. . . . Even at the rate of 90 miles a-day, it would require more than 80 years to go round its circumference” (Alterton, Origins, 140). The close connection between Eureka and Poe’s fiction is illustrated again in his use of Dick in his apocalyptic tale “The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion” (1839) (Alterton, Origins). Poe’s tale avoids specific Christian implications: it uses Dick’s physics, not his theology. A guide to Poe’s use of Dick appears in Collected Writings (1:657). Poe used The Christian Philosopher sxx. times and Dick’s Celestial Scenery (1838) ten times there.

202 the tongue of an archangel: This may come from I Corinthians 12:4, “the tongues of men and of angels,” or Milton’s Paradise Lost (7:112-13): “To recount almighty works, / What words or tongues of seraph can suffice?” (BRP). Compare also the angel figure in paragraph 200. Leverrier’s planet: Neptune (H193 and note). the largest orbs . . . Space: Poe’s statement is too simplistic. The mass of a star, not

• 1

5 4 ’

NOTES TO PAGES 84-85 its size, would determine how vast a “vacancy” it would sweep clean of matter. In fact, high-mass, high-luminosity stars do have large cavities around them, but this is because of their radiation pressure, not their gravitational pull (Twarog). 203 the eye of the mind: “A recasting of Hamlet’s ‘in my mind’s eye, Horatio’ (1.2.line *85)

(BRP). Poe used it elsewhere (Complete Works, 8:144 ta review of William

Gilmore Simms’s The Partisan in the January 1836 Southern Literary Messenger] and Collected Writings, 3:44 [a column entitled “Literary Notices” in the Broadway Jour¬ nal on September 20, 1845, discussing a weekly paper, the New World]). Poe some¬

times further alters Shakespeare, as “in our mind’s eye.” 204 Alpha Lyrce: Further evidence of the close relationship between Eureka and Poe’s satiric tale “Mellonta Tauta.” Not only do the two works share several pages of nearly identical prose (see

11-^24 above), they also share a good deal of com¬

mon information. Alpha Lyrae is mentioned twice in “Mellonta Tauta,” once in a passage in which Pundita, Poe’s unreliable tourist-narrator, explains a special relationship between the sun and Alpha Lyras. The idea is pure stardust, of course: all celestial bodies interact with one another, but Alpha Lyrae is too im¬ mensely distant to be in significant relationship with the sun. Pundita passes along this pearl of her husband’s wisdom (he is a “pundit”) in a context that suggests a connection with the thought of Immanuel Kant (Thirty-Two Stories, 356m 4; Short Fiction, 6i8ni4; Collected Works, 3:1300-1302), which is also suggestive for Eureka. Both Eureka and “Mellonta Tauta” contain disparaging allusions to Kant

(see f 12). 205 159-miles: Substituting modern values in Poe’s illustration for the distance to Alpha Lyrae yields a very different distance; the figures Poe used were off by a factor of about 2. Now, one would use not 159 miles but 317 (Twarog). 202-5

As elsewhere noted, Eureka often shows its origin as a talk. These paragraphs

strike BRP as especially oral in nature. In paragraph 205, “readers” in the first sentence could well read “listeners,” and the deliberate error and correction regarding distance “is the sort of jest expected on the platform, not in a trea¬ tise.” See also the opening of Eureka, especially paragraph 11 note. 209 19 trillions, 200 billions of miles: The distance is now reckoned at 11.214 lightyears, a radically different value from the figures Friedrich Bessel (see next item) generated. Indeed, 61 Cygni is much closer to earth than is Alpha Lyrae—only 0.4 the distance (or as our astronomer consultant writes it, 0.4 D Lyr). A pocket calculator puts that at 6.5822968 x 1013 miles (Twarog). Bessel. ... 61 trillions of miles: Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1784-1846), director

of the Koenigsberg Observatory, in 1838 published his study of the annual par¬ allax of the star 61 Cygni. This was the first time anyone had succeeded in ob¬ serving parallax of a star, and this yielded the first even approximately accurate figures for interstellar distance. Bessel’s accomplishment was officially recognized in 1841 (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver). An account of this work by Bessel appears in Humboldt’s Cosmos, in the same passage (2:72) in which

• 1 5 5 ’

NOTES TO PAGES 86-87 the material alluded to in paragraph 179 also appears (see Kiygn). Humboldt writes that it follows from “Bessel’s . . . excellent Memoir on the parallax of the remarkable star 61 Cygni. . . , (whose considerable motions might lead to the inference of great proximity), that a period of nine years and a quarter is required for the transmission of light from this star to our planet.” Accounts of new scien¬ tific developments, however, were widely available and generally provided “con¬ text,” explaining how the new work affected the “big picture” (Twarog). One cannot prove that Poe took this information from Humboldt. 210 Struve . . . second: Otto Struve (1819-1905), director of the Pulkovo Observa¬ tory in Russia. Struve’s elegant method for measuring the speed of light used “stellar aberration,” that is, the apparent change in position of a star that results from the motion of the earth about the sun. The size of the observed change depends upon VE — when VE = velocity of Earth and C = speed of light. C If VE is known, one can derive C. VE was known from the length of our year, its orbital period, and the size of its orbit (2 AU). Encke had earlier determined 1 AU (the distance between the Earth and the Sun) by using solar parallax. These early calculations were quite accurate—off only about 3 percent from modem figures (Twarog). A modern figure for the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. So far as Poe’s argument goes, all the material about the vastness of the universe is padding. 213 the elder Herschell. . . telescope: Sir William Herschel (1738-1822) did brilliant work on the motion of stars in space, concluding with a “pretty correct idea of which way the Sun moved” (Ronan, Astronomers Royal, 93). In the course of fur¬ ther work to catalog the brightness (“magnitude”) of stars, he decided to pro¬ duce the estimates of stellar distances to which Poe refers. He had at Slough in 1789 a telescope with “a 48-inch mirror and a focal length of 10 feet” (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 411). Herschel “tells us that his forty-

foot reflector will bring him light from a distance of ‘at least eleven and threefourths millions of millions of millions of miles’—light which left its source two million years ago” (Williams, The Great Astronomers, 257). Herschel studied neb¬ ulae, discovering roughly two thousand new ones himself. The most distant he could see “was at least three hundred thousand times as distant from us as the nearest fixed star” (ibid., 259). Herschel, incidentally, could be a source for Poe’s notion in paragraphs 185 and 186 and at the close of Eureka that there may be other universes, each “instinct with life” (Williams, The Great Astronomers). His were the first systematic attempts to use actual observations “to determine the extent of the stellar system” (Pannekoek, A History of Astronomy, 316). Herschell: Poe’s spelling error is discussed in Collected Writings, 1:471. The trail

•156-

NOTES TO PAGES 87-88 runs to his story “The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall” (1835) and to an item in Poe’s “literati” series on Richard Locke. magical tube of Lord Rosse: William Parsons, third earl of Rosse (1800-1867) (see K163 and its notes). From 1839 on, he had a thirty-six-inch reflector at Birr Castle. A six-foot reflector was completed in 1845. A news item about the earl’s astronomy equipment ran in the January 1 o, 1845, Evening Mirror (TOM, notes). “Between 1845 and 1908 his Leviathan, 58 feet in length and 7 feet in diame¬ ter, was the largest telescope ever built” (P. Quinn, ed., Edgar Allan Poe, 1400). Poe wrote about it in a letter to the Columbia Spy (Letter 4 in the Spy for June 8, 1844). BRP suggests mention of Poe’s boyhood use of a telescope from the up¬ per porch of his Richmond home (A. H. Quinn, Edgar Allan Poe, 92-93). On a likely source for Poe’s information on Rosse and the telescope, see the tale “Hans Pfaall” in Collected Writings, 1:430, 1:497-98. See also paragraph 82 (p. 428) of that story. 214 Space and Duration are one: The statement seems to be unambiguous evidence that Poe understood space-time in the modern sense. Although most of the more famous ways in which Eureka “anticipates” or “predicts” twentieth-century science turn out on close examination to be not quite the same as more modern con¬ cepts, or shrewd guesses based on not very solid data, this one seems to be a fine extrapolation from firm information that Poe thoroughly understood. It suggests how very good a mind Poe had (Twarog). The remainder of the paragraph, however, seems to be nonsense, because Poe never—despite the dramatic dashes he perhaps added to cover his logical tracks—says exactly why vast cosmic dis¬ tances are necessary. The word “vitalic” perhaps provides a clue to what Poe had in mind; BRP suggests a link to the passage in paragraphs 159 and 160 in which Poe speculates very loosely (so loosely that he apologizes for doing so) on the possibility of a relationship between celestial events and the evolution of life and consciousness. Pollin writes, “The remainder of the paragraph seems to be a bow to theological propriety which the school of Vitalism was seeking to conciliate.” See also 133 and note. 216 Divine adaptation: As f 2 i8n explains, in this portion of Eureka Poe echoes “Mar¬ ginalia” item 18. BRP, who edited Poe’s “Brevities” (Collected Writings, vol. 2), has provided detailed notes on how close the two passages are. “Item 18,” he writes, is devoted to “Divine adaptation” by contrast with “human constructions.” The first three sentences of the earlier passage are close to the first three of para¬ graph 216, but do not use the term “reciprocity.” This, however, is introduced at the end of the first of the three paragraphs. The texts are so similar as to warrant our regarding paragraphs 216-217 as variants of the passage from the “Marginalia.” The ostensible point of Poe’s 1844 article lay in the short paragraph, omitted, on the writers of the Bridgewater Tracts [see I218n and also H133] who avoid this “mutual adaptation” because it tends “to overthrow the idea of... First Cause—of God.” Or else, they have “failed to perceive”

•15 7

’

NOTES TO PAGE 89 Poe’s sole insight (expressed in the next paragraph below, q.v.). In the 12/ 44 set of “Marginalia” (item 82) Poe used “plot adaptation” for this one sen¬ tence article, and in the 8/45 “American Drama” article of the American Whig Review he incorporated all of Marginalia item 18 unchanged—a waystation

to Eureka. 217 azotized: “Azote” was Lavoisier’s term for nitrogen. Poe referred to it also in “Von Kempelen and His Discovery” (1849) (Pollin, Discoveries in Poe, 178—80; Short Fic¬ tion, 607-11, esp. 607-8,62on6; Collected, Works, 3:1355-67, esp. 3:1359,3:136609)

in “Hans Pfaall” (1835), in which tale Poe referred to Herschel, as he does so importandy in Eureka. train-oil: Oil from blubber, or from seals and codfish. See note to paragraph 114. reciprocity of adaptation: Poe is alluding to a phenomenon that he terms in “Mar¬

ginalia” item 18 “mutuality of adaptation” (see Collected Writings, 2:127-28). (It is absent, he complains, from the “Bridgewater Treatises.”) He is either being prescient or concealing his source in regard to an aspect of what is now termed coevolution; this is applied to the interdependence between plants and animals, enabling their continued living and reproducing together. Following a sugges¬ tion by BRP, we checked a number of histories of evolutionary theory without finding reference to the concept before Poe. The 1989 second edition of the OED and its supplements through 1997 did not list “coevolution.” An excellent

discussion of attempts to define coevolution appears in Schemske, “Limits to Spe¬ cialization,” 67-109. Building upon a definition byjonathan Roughgarden in Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction (New York:

Macmillan, 1979)—“the simultaneous evolution of interacting populations” (45 i)—Schemske notes that one needs to add that the process is the result of “interactions between taxa at the level of particular traits” (70). Close examina¬ tion of what Poe says in paragraphs 216 and 217 in the light of those definitions suggests that Poe may not have had a secure grip on coevolution as it is now understood. His explanation in paragraph 216 perhaps promises more than his example in paragraph 217 delivers, for the example does not quite show “simul¬ taneous evolution” or “interaction ... on the level of particular traits.” Poe does not argue, that is, that people of the cold north have evolved so that they can metabolize fats or that the animals they eat have mutually evolved in ways benefi¬ cial to both species. Our consultant in the history of biology (Professor Emeri¬ tus John A. Weir, University of Kansas), however, agreed with us that Poe’s in¬ sight was nevertheless impressive and very unusual for the period—“profound,” he called it. 218 In the construction. . . . God: Poe quotes himself again, repeating a passage pre¬ viously used in “Marginalia” item 18 in 1844 and in his article “The American Drama” (1845) (Pollin, “Politics and History,” 128; Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver; see also f 216 and \ 2 i6n). In both places the “plot of God”

passage is connected to mention of the “Bridgewater Treatises” (see f 133). (Poe’s

•158-

NOTES TO PAGES 89-90 “depends” means “hangs from” or “is supported by.”) The passage is important evidence of Poe’s sense of unity. Artistic and scientific inspiration are of the same sort, man’s efforts—flawed by his “finite intelligence”—to perceive the perfect beauty that underlies creation. Hence Poe’s most astute analyst, the detective Dupin, is also a poet: see the story “The Purloined Letter” (1844). BRP kindly provides a table of variations. In each case, the “Marginalia” item 18 version ap¬ pears first and the Eureka version is after the slash: the approach / the approach; reciprocity between cause and effect. / reciprocity.; the points / the incidents; that we cannot distinctly see, in respect to any one of them, whether that one / that we shall not. . . depends; perfection of plot / perfection of plot; unattainable in fact,—because Man is the constructor. / unattainable . . . constructs. 219 washer-womanish: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 68). In this por¬ tion of Eureka he seems to be uncomfortable with his material. See note to para¬ graph 222. 220 Fourier: Authorities disagree on whether Poe intended to refer here to Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830), a “French physicist noted for his research¬ es on heat and numerical equations” (Poe, The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. Beaver, 411) or to the French social theorist Francois Marie-Charles Fourier (1772-1837). There is considerable evidence that Poe had in mind the latter. Eureka heavily overlaps Poe’s satirical story “Mellonta Tauta.” In that tale, the

narrator consistently misspells the names of any figures Poe intends to criticize. Poe elsewhere made snide remarks about F. M-C. Fourier, who was extremely well known in the United States because a number of American socialist utopian communities were deeply influenced by his theories. Brook Farm near Boston, which began as an idyllic Transcendentalist haven, eventually fell into the hands of Fourierist theorists who attempted to turn it into a phalanstery. Poe, who admired Hawthorne’s stories (the feeling was mutual), nevertheless teased him in print for having involved himself in Brook Farm’s “phalanx and phalanstery' atmosphere” (Holman, “Splitting Poe’s ‘Epicurean Atoms,”’ 2). “Phalanx” and “phalanstery” are Fourier’s terms. In “Mellonta Tauta,” Poe spelled Fourier as “Furrier.” In Eureka, he spelled it “Fourrier” in 1848, correcting it later in a pen¬ ciled note (see list of Poe’s corrections). Poe’s error was probably a carryover of the joke he was using in the story (see Thirty-Two Stories, 346, 347-60, esp. 349, 34905; Short Fiction, 547-48, 588-96, esp. 589, 61706; Collected Works, 3:1289309, esp. 3:1293 and 3:1306012). (See the next item for further evidence that Poe had the humor of “Mellonta Tauta” in mind.) On the other hand, Jean Bap¬ tiste Joseph Fourier was extremely famous and very important; his great work in theory of equations and in heat diffusion and partial differential equations was closely related to very general scientific and philosophical issues of the sort that interested Poe. He “rejected the prevailing Laplacian orthodoxy of analyzing physical phenomena through the assumption of imperceptible molecules connect¬ ed by local Newtonian forces” (Ravetz and Grattan-Guiness, “Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier,” 97). The work of Descartes, Bernoulli, Newton, Laplace, Comte, Bessel,

’ 1 5 9 •

NOTE TO PAGE go and others intersects his. Indeed, several of those great figures were his contem¬ poraries, and he dealt with them personally. Poe knew about this Fourier: he was one of the famous men of the age. His political adventures during the period of the French Revolution, his career as a Napoleonic administrator, and his work in Egypt during the French campaigns there make an extraordinary story that was well known. There is even a scrap of circumstantial evidence that Poe had read about him in some detail. In Poe’s “The Mystery of Marie Roget” (1842), Poe mentions a street address, “Rue Pavee Saint Andre.” That address does not appear in the novel from which Poe cribbed most of his geographical facts about Paris, Pelham or Adventures of a Gentleman by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1828, 1840; the place names are in vol. 1, ch. 23). But until 1829, Fourier lived at 15 Rue Pavee St. Andre des Arts. Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier’s fame, the relevance of his work to Eureka, and the chance that Poe borrowed a fact about him, however, do not point directly to what Poe says in paragraph 220 of Eureka, whereas the works of F. M-C. Fouri¬ er plainly do. Poe says “reveries,” and “reveries” is appropriate language for his work, for although his thought has been surprisingly influential, his wridng is marked by, in Edward S. Mason’s words, “a great deal of the fantastic and ridic¬ ulous and a verbiage so luxuriant as to seem at times that of a madman.” He does indeed offer wild speculation on the cosmos, as Poe suggests: the Milky Way, he allowed, is soon going to dissolve. Fourier felt that his work on the human pas¬ sions was the true completion of the work of Newton. His writings, although notably chaotic, are, in fact, intellectually akin to Eureka. Charles Fourier believed in analogy. His work is dotted with tables to show correspondences among smells, planets, human passions, his coming state of “Harmony,” phalanxes, the climate on earth, the oceans (which would become beverages), the solar sys¬ tem, the universe, and creation beyond the universe. For further examples of Poe on F. M-C. Fourier, see his scornful references in “Marginalia” item 165 (Collected Writings, 2:274-75, 2:275, 2:276n) and “Fifty Suggestions,” notes 10 and 28 (ibid., 481,482n, 493-94, 494^.

Madler: Johann Heinrich von Madler (1794-1874), the German astronomer, is also mentioned in Poe’s “Mellonta Tauta” (see previous item), where Poe’s nar¬ rator Pundita spells his name “Muddler.” The misspelling indicates satirical in¬ tent (“a muddler”). Operating at the observatory in Dorpat (Tartu) in what is now Estonia after 1840 with the excellent astronomical equipment with which Struve had worked, Madler tried to establish that the Milky Way had a central constellation—Alcyone, in the Pleiades. Later research effectively destroyed his hypothesis (Twarog). See paragraph 221 and note. Madler, however, is not Poe’s only source for the idea; it was current in intellectual circles as well. The idea of the rotation of stars around a common center is important in “Mellonta Tauta,” wherein Poe develops an “analogy”: stars move around a center as the planets move around the sun. This makes it likely that Poe connected the idea to Im¬ manuel Kant as well, for in “Mellonta Tauta,” Pundita expounds Kant, whose

• 1 6 O •

NOTES TO PAGES 90-93 name she spells as “Cant” (Thirty-Two Stories, 35in8; Short Fiction, 6i7n7; Collect¬ ed Works, 3:1295). BRP points out that Poe knew Kant only secondhand via sum¬

maries. See note to paragraph 12. period . . . years: The modern figure for the time it takes the sun to orbit the cen¬

ter of the galaxy is larger: 230 million years. The “stupendous globe,” of course, is nowhere in sight. 221 A point. . . Herculis: See note to paragraph 220. A passage in Nichol (Views of Astronomy, Lecture 2, p. 12) also explains that stars toward which the sun is

moving appear to spread out, whereas those from which it moves away seem to cluster more closely. Nichol has the earth’s solar system moving toward Hercules, however, and Poe, away. Hodgens (typescript) suggests that Poe had the direc¬ tion wrong. Madler. . . performed: See note to paragraph 220. Note that Poe makes clear in paragraphs 224 and 225 that he rejects Madler’s idea. 222 “analogy”: Poe’s discussion of analogy in this and subsequent paragraphs rejects the hypothesis that there exists a vast central star around our sun and the rest of the galaxy revolve. It does not do so because reasoning from analogy is a logical fallacy. Like other high Romantics of transcendental leanings, Poe be¬ lieved strongly in the importance of analogical inferences. He agreed on this matter with Emerson, who wrote in the chapter entitled “Language” in Nature, “there is nothing lucky or capricious in . . . analogies . . . they are constant, and pervade nature. These are not the dreams of a few poets, here and there, but man is an analogist, and studies relations in all objects.” In “The American Scholar,” Emerson put it even more simply: “[SJcience is nothing but the find¬ ing of analogy, identity, in the most remote parts.” Poe rejects the argument for the vast star not because he is suspicious of analogical reasoning but rath¬ er because the analogy is incomplete. There is no evidence of a central “orb” or of the curved trajectory of the sun. The close correlation between Eureka and the satirical “Mellonta Tauta” continues: the narrator of the story also connects a central “orb,” the rotation by the sun, Madler, and analogy, the same range of ideas and associations (Thirty-Two Stories, 356ni4; Short Fiction, 6i8ni4; Collected Works, 3:1301).

223 non-luminosity: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 86). The word nonluminous (see f 222) is ascribed by the OED solely to the introduction to David

Brewster’s Optics. Poe was familiar with Brewster’s Letters on Magic and Edinburgh Encyclopedia articles (see Pollin ‘“MS Found in a Bottle’”; Collected Works, index

entries in 2:1415; and Collected Writings, 1:656, index entries). 227 Sir John Herschell: Sir John Frederick William Herschel (not Herschell; see f 213n) (1792-1871), English astronomer. Poe quotes paragraph 615, chapter 12, of Herschel’s A Treatise on Astronomy (TOM, notes). The Treatise was enormous¬ ly popular. Carey, Lea and Blanchard of Philadelphia brought out editions in

• 1 6 1 •

NOTES TO PAGE 93 1834, 1835 (“New ed.” but not actually revised), 1836, 1838, 1839, 1842, 1844, 1845, 1846, and 1848. Poe said that he had read the Harper’s edition of 1835 {Short Fiction, 615026), but we have been unable to confirm its existence. (See Collected Writings, i:47in23a, for discussion of Poe’s use of Herschel in “Hans Pfaall.”) We obtained copies of both the 1834 and 1835 Philadelphia editions, which do contain Poe’s quotation with just enough minor variations to leave one uncertain about why they are present. Poe did frequently tinker with other peo¬ ple’s words; it was a habit as marked as his odd practices regarding the digraph and dieresis (explained in Collected Writings, 2:xxxvi-xl). The text, identical in these two copies, was: “It is difficult to form any conception of the dynamical state of such a system. On the one hand, without a rotatory motion and a centrifugal force, it is hardly possible not to regard them as in a state of progressive collapse. On the other, granting such a motion and such a force, we find it no less difficult to reconcile the apparent sphericity of their form with a rotation of the whole system round any single axis, without which internal collisions would appear to be inevitable.” Later editions of Herschel’s Treatise on Astronomy are different in chapter and paragraph numbering, but we have not found one with Poe’s exact wording. Collected Writings (1:658) indexes eighteen other references to Herschel. See also paragraph 73. 229 Poe quotes from Nichol’s first lecture, the one given on January 2 5 and covered in the New York Tribune on January 27. See the note to the next paragraph. Ol¬ iver Dyer, “phonographic writer,” transcribed Nichol’s entire series of lectures for the Tribune; his texts were quickly published as Views of Astronomy (New York: Greeley and McElrath, 1848). Poe’s quotation varies from that text in small details; among other things, Poe corrected obvious typographical errors: Eureka

Dyer/Nichol

When

when

to bear upon

to bear to upon

which were thought

which which were thought

irregular,

spherical

which looked oval;

that looked oval,

Rosse’s

Ross’s

Now

f Now,

comparatively

comparalively

reverse;

reverse,

stars,

stars

stretching. . . power

stretching . . . power

230 without. . . phenomena: One commentator remarks of Poe’s critique of Nichol here, “One reads these words with a good deal of surprise. ... [I] t is not unlike¬ ly that Poe owed the first suggestion of his ‘stupendous truth’ to the very man whom he now dismisses as not having the ‘faintest suspicion’ of it. At the very

•162-

NOTES TO PAGES 93-94 least he knew that Nichol was thoroughly acquainted with the nebular cosmog¬ ony, for in his first reference to Nichol years before he had presented his name as an inevitable association of the theory” (Connor, “Poe and John Nichol,” 203) But Hodgens, in a note to us, points to a distinction: “As shown here [and else¬ where] . . . , Dr. N., following Herschel, was prepared to consider the collapse of clusters or galaxies and of solar systems, but not ready (shall we say) to say the entire universe of stars is collapsing.” Connor slightly misreads Poe; Poe is not accusing Nichol of not knowing about the nebular cosmogony but of having “missed” Poe’s “stupendous” idea of a universe beginning and ending in unity because of an initial action by God: “In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation” (K5). Connor was correct in his general observation that Poe is unfair to Nichol, as we have discussed in the Introduction. Poe’s first reference to Nichol was in “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841) (Collected Works, 2:570m6, 2:571021). He referred to him again in a review in the June 21, 1845, Broadway Journal of Tayler Lewis’s Plato Contra Athos . . . Extended Dissertations on Some of the Main Points of the Platonic Philosophy . . . Compared with the Holy Scriptures. (Poe spelled the name “Nichols” in both places.) (See Collected Writings, 3:88, 4:67, 88/71-74, 3:154, 4:116, 154/67-69.)

231 Argelander: Friedrich Wilhelm Argelander (1799-1875), a Prussian astronomer who continued the pioneering work of F. W. Bessel (see above) ultimately pub¬ lishing an extensive catalog of the motions of 560 stars, DLX stellarum fixarum positiones mediae ineunte anno 1830 (Helsinki, 1835), “incontestably the most ex¬ act of the contemporary catalogs” (Sticker, “Friedrich Wilhelm August Argeland¬ er”) . Poe here probably refers, however, to Argelander’s liber die eigene Bewegung des Sonnensystems, hergeleitet aus den eigenen Bewegungen der Sterne (Concerning the Peculiar Movement of the Solar System as Deduced from the Proper Motions of the Stars) (St. Petersburg, 1837). This work verifies with superior data and instruments Herschel’s brilliant work on the movement of the sun. Argelander asks but stops short of exploring the large question, “Are all bodies . . . subject only to their mutual attractions, or do all of them obey the attractive force of a large central body?” (Sticker, “Friedrich Wilhelm August Argelander,” 241), a question of which Poe makes much in Eureka. BRP points out that Alterton and Craig {Edgar Allan Poe, 552) reached the same conclusion regarding Poe’s ref¬ erence to Argelander. Madler’s basis: All astronomy subsequent to Argelander’s work depends upon it (Sticker, “Friedrich Wilhelm August Argelander”). Humboldt: Recall that Eureka is dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt.

232 “When. . . . hypothesis”: Poe quotes the first section, “Celestial Portion of the Cosmos,” of Humboldt’s Kosmos (Stuttgart, 1845). He apparendy used an incom¬ plete, pirated English-language edition published in New York by Harper and Brothers, because he referred to that edition in the Broadway Journal on August

•163-

NOTES TO PAGES 94-95 30, 1845. His footnote quoting the German original he included to suggest that he knew German, although he did not: he had an English text open before him, which he altered somewhat, probably to make the translation seem his own work. Gruener (“Poe’s Knowledge of German”) reports that the 1845 edition is a six¬ ty-six-page pamphlet, the first installment of a book the rest of which Gruener believes never appeared. We examined the copy owned by the Library of Con¬ gress in which the first sixty-four pages, ending in the middle of a sentence, are bound together with a photocopy of pages 65 through 128. BRP reports that Harper and Brothers did complete the volume. The photocopied pages likely came from the remainder of the Harper edition, which Gruener could not lo¬ cate and the Library of Congress does not own. (There is a copy in Boston, BRP reports.) Harper promised a second volume but did not produce it. Because Poe so warmly praised Kosmos, we think it likely that he did not know even the re¬ mainder of the first volume, for the volume ends with a moving affirmation of “the unity of the human kind” that repudiates “all the unsatisfactory assumptions of higher and lower races of men” (108). Poe’s racial ideas were not nearly so modern. Poe, at any rate, probably based his “translation” on this edition, al¬ though his alterations are considerable. The passage Poe adapted is on page 46. The Harper and Brothers text reads, “If the non-perspective proper motions of the stars be considered, many of them appear groupwise opposed in their direc¬ tions; and the data hitherto collected make it at least not necessary to suppose that all the parts of our astral system, or the whole of the star-islands which fill the universe, are in motion about any great, unknown, luminous, or non-luminous central mass. The longing to reach the last or highest fundamental cause, indeed, renders the reflecting faculty of man as well as his fancy disposed to adopt such a supposition.” BRP notes an error in Maddison (“Poe’s Eureka’), who discussed this passage using a later translation by Elise C. Otte, while the Harper volume uses the Au¬ gustin Pritchard translation. Poe’s “rewrite” is closer to the latter. See also the Broadway Journal, July 12, 1845 (Collected Writings, 3:169) and the notes to it (4:127-28). The Broadway Journal item introduces four transplanted paragraphs from Kosmos, and the notes discuss Poe’s rewording of the translation. non-perspective: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 86).

234 Herschell: See paragraphs 7 and 65 notes. collapse: Poe believed that the universe is in its contracting phase. See paragraph 236 note. orbitual: “An unexpected term for the common ‘orbital’ and half a dozen more adjectives for ‘orbit.’ The OED’s attribution as the first instance to Herschel’s Treatise on Astronomy probably indicates Poe’s further reliance upon that work” (BRP).

235 Herschell: See paragraphs 7 and 65 notes. 236 “if. . . obtain”: Poe’s quotation is hypothetical; he is not quoting anyone in par-

•164-

NOTES TO PAGES 96-98 ticular. His general point is incorrect; the universe is known to be still expand¬ ing. The current standard view is that “in a finite universe with an edge, gravita¬ tional imbalance must draw matter away from the edge—i.e., a collapse must oc¬ cur” (Twarog).

237 supremeness: The OED credits Poe with this coinage in his 1844 tale “The Pre¬ mature Burial” {Short Fiction, 308; Collected Works, 3:953) (BRP). For a useful discussion of this paragraph, see Dayan, Fables of Mind.

238 vortical: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 40). BRP adds that Poe “pays special attention” here and in several stories to “the movement and funnel-shape of the gyre.” See “MS. Found in a Bottle,” 1833 {Thirty-Two Stories, 16; Short Fic¬ tion, 623; Collected Works, 2:135); “A Descent into the Maelstrom,” 1841 {ThirtyTwo Stories 160; Short Fiction, 40; Collected Works, 2:577); The Narrative of A. Gor¬ don Pym, 1837 {Collected Writings, 1:144); and “Hans Pfaall,” 1835 {ShortFiction, 558; Collected Writings, 1:387-433).

239 gradual.. . comet: “Encke’s comet” was named after Johann Franz Encke (17911865), who showed in 1819 that comet sightings in 1786, 1795, 1805, and 1818 were of the same comet. He calculated its orbit and period (about 1,204 days) and noted that it was accelerating, though not in the “perfectly regular” man¬ ner Poe claims. Its behavior, indeed, posed major problems for nineteenth-cen¬ tury astronomy. Its situation is, in fact, much like that of Halley’s comet. Fuller discussion of Poe’s use of Encke in “Hans Pfaall” and of comets in his work is in Collected Writings (i:463nga, i:473n26b).

242 Lagrange: Poe’s science summary is good, but his science history is faulty. Lagrange (1736—1813) worked on planetary theory from 1774 to 1784 and again follow¬ ing 1808, but the breakthrough for which Poe credits him was actually Laplace’s, not Lagrange’s, although Lagrange figures in the story. Here is an account from a standard modern astronomy history: Halley had in 1693 perceived that the moon’s period of revolution, hence also its distance from the earth, had gradually diminished. ... If this diminution in the moon’s orbit continued into the future, the moon would finally descend upon the earth. In 1770 the Paris Academy offered their prize for research as to whether the theory of gravitation could explain the phenomenon; Euler, in his prize treatise, [concluded] . . . ‘that the secular inequality of the moon’s motion cannot be produced by the forces of gravitation.’ In . . . 1772 he . . . [supposed] that the term probably arose from the resistance of an ethe¬ real fluid which filled celestial space. . . . After many fruitless attempts by Lagrange and Laplace, the latter at last, in 1787, succeeded in discovering the real cause. By the action of the planets upon the earth, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit was continually diminishing . . .; because the orbit became more circular, the mean distance of the sun increased, and its perturbing effect decreased. By the attraction of the sun, the moon’s orbit was enlarged; this enlargement now gradually diminished through the decrease of the sun s

•165*

NOTES TO PAGES 98-103 effect. . . Thus . . . uneasiness was removed, and the conviction that Newton’s theory was capable of explaining all the movements in the solar system grew even stronger. (Pannekoek, A History of Astronomy, 304-5)

243 an ether: Compare what Poe says here to Agathos’ explanadon in Poe’s story “The Power of Words” (1835) {Thirty-Two Stories, 318-22, esp. 321-22115; Short Fiction, 107-8, 114-16, 145-46, esp. 14605; Collected Works, 3:1210-17). Agathos speaks of an ether “which, since it pervades, and alone pervades all space, is thus the great medium of creation. ”In “The Power of Words,” the ether does seem to be “mat¬ ter”; in Eureka, Poe says that it is not. Agathos explains that one must take seri¬ ously the “physical power of words, ’’acting first on the air and then upon the “ether” so that one can literally speak stars into being. The distinction between ether as “matter” or as spiritual medium is less critical than one might think. Poe’s un¬ derlying point is the same: Spirit and matter, creation, perception, and nature are intertwined, unified, ultimately one. The inspired artist-scientist-poet-vision¬ ary will someday be able to account for spirituality in scientific terms. Emerson’s phrase from “The Poet” is apt: “The Universe is the externalization of the soul.” For a comparison between Poe’s projections and the models of contemporary astrophysics, see the Introduction to this volume.

245 vorticial: See note to paragraph 238. indrawing: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 29).

246 system-atoms: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 66). 247 climacic: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 24). 250 that God . . . all: See I Corinthians, 15:28, "that God may be all in all” (TOM, notes).

256 this Heart Divine ... is our own: Central to many of the mystical, Oriental, and/ or occult beliefs that seemed sympathetic to Romantic authors is the understand¬ ing that the individual is identical with the universe. Transcendence in such sys¬ tems of thought is often defined as the realization of this unity, which is some¬ times seen as identical to merger with the godhead. The idea is recurrent in Emerson, for example, and appears in Western thought at least as far back as Plato. It is in Poe as well, although not always with the bright implications it car¬ ries in Eureka. For a gloomier variant, see his poem “A Dream within a Dream” (1827 and repeatedly revised until 1849): O God! can I not save One [grain of sand] from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream? See paragraph 263, where merger with a world-spirit that sounds very much like the Emersonian Oversoul is made especially specific, and paragraph 266, in which another aspect of occult belief is spelled out.

•

1 6 6

•

NOTES TO PAGES 103-8 259 We . . . awful: That the young retain some sense of “a Destiny more vast” from a time before their birth is an idea found frequently among the Romantic authors and poets whom Poe knew best. The intuitive, magical knowledge of the very young was generally felt to be buried gradually as the maturing child was “so¬ cialized.” In paragraph 259 and the paragraphs that follow, Poe plays a special variation on the theme. Wordsworth wrote in the “Ode: Intimations of Immor¬ tality from Recollections of Early Childhood” (1807): . . . trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. But by the time we are older, the inspired poetic vision has become, as Word¬ sworth put it elsewhere, “a study” (see Critical Theory, note to T[g of Poe, “Letter to B-”). In Poe, in contrast, the clouds of glory are a sign that each soul is part of the godhead, “that each soul is, in part, its own God” (1263). world-existence: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 69).

262 World-Reason: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 6g). 263 re-constitution: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 35). 266 There was. . .. Spirit Divine: In such religions as those referred to in the note to paragraph 256, the universe is understood as alive, sensate, identical with the individual, and identical with God. BRP suggests comparison with a very similar passage in “The Island of the Fay” (tSqipsee Collected Works, 2:601 and 2:605113. Self-Diffusion: Poe’s coinage (Pollin, Poe: Creator of Words, 63). pain-intertangled: Poe’s coinage (ibid., 59).

Appendix: Poe’s Postscript to a Letter about the Lecture “Eureka” 2

sun ... he: BRP suggests that Poe assigns gender to heavenly bodies (see f6 below also) because that practice is followed in an unpaged article on “Moon” in vol¬ ume 24 of Abraham Rees’s Cyclopaedia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literatures (London, 1802-19). That seems likely, for there is other evidence of the influence of Rees upon him, for example, Poe’s odd spelling of “eccentric¬ ity” discussed in the notes to paragraph 178 of Eureka. Kepler’s Third Law: “The square of the time of revolution of any planet about the Sun is proportional to the cube of its mean distance from the Sun” (Collected Works, 3:132302). gaseous ring: See notes to paragraph 172 of Eureka. This is a passage in which Eureka itself is unsound. Indeed, Twarog, who generally praises Poe s summary of science theory, responded to it with the same pejorative he used for the “Post¬ script” in general: “numerology.”

•167-

NOTES TO PAGES 110-14 4

Moon . . . her: See note to paragraph 2.

5

caloric: An archaic scientific term used for the “subtle fluid” that was the stuff of heat. lonesome latter days: Mabbott, in Collected Works, 3:132304, suggests comparison with Poe’s poem “The Conqueror Worm” (1843), “a gala night / Within the lonesome latter years.” melt. . . scroll!: Mabbott writes, “Compare also Isaiah 34:4, ‘And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll’; and Revelation 6:14, ‘The heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled togeth¬ er’” (Collected Works, 3:132305).

6

Venus . . . her: See note to paragraph 2. Mercury’s . . . his: See note to paragraph 2.

8

Kepler’s .. . Theory: Woodberry, relying upon his science consultant Irving Stringham, writes, “It is stated that Kepler’s first and third laws ‘cannot be explained upon the principle of Newton’s theory;’ but, in fact, they follow by mathematical deduction from it. Poe’s own explanation of them is merely a play upon figures” (310)-

9

Jupiter. . . . diameter: Woodberry and Stringham write, “The density of Jupiter, for example, in a long and important calculation, is constandy reckoned as two and one half, whereas it is only something more than one fifth, and the densi¬ ties of the planets are described as being inversely as their rotary periods, whereas in any table of the elements of the solar system some wide departures from this rule are observable” (310).

12

“breadth”: Woodberry and Stringham write: A striking instance of fundamental ignorance of astronomical science is his [Poe’s] statement at various places that the planets rotate (on their own axes) in elliptical orbits, and the reference he frequendy makes to the breadth of their orbits (the breadth of their paths through space) agreeably to this sup¬ position. Such a theory is incompadble with the Newtonian law of gravitation, according to which any revolution in an elliptical orbit implies a source of attraction at the focus of the ellipse. Examples of bodies which have breadth of orbit in Poe’s sense are found in the satellites of all the planets, each of which, however, has its primary as a source of attraction to keep it in its ellip¬ tical orbit; the primary by its revoludon round the sun gives then the satel¬ lite a breadth of orbit. But to make the proper rotation of the planets them¬ selves take place about a focus, which would be merely a point moving in an elliptical orbit about the sun, would be to give them an arbitrary motion with no force to produce it (310-11).

15

truck: Poe has in mind the nautical meaning of this word: a ring or disc through which ropes pass.

■ 1 6 8 •

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collections of Scholarly Notes Hodgens, Richard M. Typescript notes graciously loaned to us. They deal with simi¬ larities between Eureka and a number of documents, especially the lectures of John Pringle Nichol. Mabbott, Thomas Ollive (TOM). Mabbott Papers, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Pre¬ liminary notes that Mabbott had prepared with an eye to further volumes of his edition. The notes are in various forms, and often several stages exist for a single work. Many have been painstakingly typed, under Maureen Mabbott’s supervision, we believe, sometimes from rough handwritten notes, sometimes from marginal jottings. Scholars using them should be aware that they are very preliminary; some are essentially notes by TOM to himself. The should not be trusted for the word¬ ing of quotations. TOM seems often to have made notations from memory and in haste, planning to check for exact wording at a later stage of his work. But the notes, which are in the hands of librarians sympathetic to scholarship, are very useful and saved us many hours.

Publications Allen, Hervey. Israfel / The Life and Times of Edgar Allan Poe. 2d ed. rev. New York: Far¬ rar and Rinehart, 1934. Alterton, Margaret. Origins of Poe’s Critical Theory. Vol. 2, no. 3 of University of Iowa Humanistic Studies. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1925. Reprint. New York: Rus¬ sell and Russell, 1965. Alterton, Margaret, and Hardin Craig. Edgar Allan Poe: Representative Selections, with Introduction, Bibliography, and Notes. New York: American Book Company, 1935. Rev. ed. New York: Hill and Wang, 1962. Atkinson, Charles Milner. Jeremy Bentham: His Life and Works. London: Methuen, 1905. Benton, Richard P., ed. Poe as Literary Cosmologer: Studies on Eureka: A Symposium. Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1975. Berman, Louis, and J. C. Evans. Exploring the Cosmos. 5th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986. Bielfeld, Jacob Friedrich. Lespremiers traits de Terudition universelle ou analyse abregee de toutes les sciences, des beaux-arts et des belles-lettres. 3 vols. Leiden: Sam. and Jean Luchtmans, 1767. •169-

BIBLIOGRAPHY -. The Elements of Universal Erudition, Containing an Analytical Abridgment of the Sciences, Polite Arts, and Belles Lettres, by Baron Bielf eld. 3 vols. Translated by W. Hoop¬ er. London: G. Scott for J. Robson and B. Law, 1770. Translated from the last edi¬ tion printed at Berlin, 1768. Brandon, Ruth. The Spiritualists: The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twenti¬ eth Centuries. New York: Knopf, 1983. Brewster, David. Review of Comte, Corns de philosophic positive. Edinburgh Review 36 (July 1838): 271-308. Browne, Sir Thomas. “Of Sneezing.” Chapter 9 of On Man, book 4 of Pseudoxia Epidemica; or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents and Commonly Presumed Truths. 6th ed. London: Printed for the assigns of Edward Dod. Bryant, Jacob. A New System or an Analysis ofAntient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt Is Made to Divest Tradition of Fable and to Reduce the Truth to Its Original Purity. London: Print¬ ed for T. Payne, 1774-76. There were additions of new material in later versions. We use the third edition, which is in six volumes: A New System; or, An Analysis of Antient Mythology. London: James Nunn, 1807. Cantalupo, Barbara. “Eureka: Poe’s ‘Novel Universe.’” In A Companion to Poe Studies. Edited by Eric W. Carlson, 323-44. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996. Carlson, Eric W. “New Introduction.” In Selections from the Critical Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by F. C. Prescott, vii—xxii. New York: Gordian Press, 1981. -, ed. The Recognition of Edgar Allan Poe/Selected Criticism since 1829. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966. Cist, Charles. Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851. Cincinnati: W. H. Moore, 1851. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Complete Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Vol. 1, ed. Ernest Hartley Coleridge. London: Oxford University Press, 1912. Reprint. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. There are several later reprints. We con¬ sulted a 1975 reprint. Conner, Frederick W. “Poe and John Nichol / Notes on a Source of Eureka. ”In All These to Teach: Essays in Honor of C. A. Robertson. Edited by Robert A. Bryan et ah, 190-208. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1965. Dayan, Joan. Fables of Mind: An Inquiry into Poe’s Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Dick, Thomas. The Christian Philosopher; or, The Connection of Science and Philosophy with Religion. Glasgow, 1823. The first American edition is New York, G. and C. Carvill, 1826. Disraeli, Isaac. Curiosities of Literature. Various editions of this work, in part or whole, have appeared since the first (London: J. Murray, 1791). We refer to the 1853 edi¬ tion: Curiosities of Literature and The Literary Character Illustrated by Disraeli along with Curiosities of American Literatureby Rufus Griswold. New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1853. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Blight.” In Poems, ed. Edward W. Emerson, Houghton Mifflin,

140.

Boston:

1904.S

Forrest, William Mentzel. Biblical Allusions in Poe. New York: Macmillan, 1928.

•170-

BIBLIOGRAPHY Godwin, Parke. A Biography of William Cullen Bryant. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1883. Gruener, Gustav. “Poe’s Knowledge of German.” Modern Philology 2 (June 1904): 124-40. Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988. Herschel, John F. Outlines of Astronomy. Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1853. -. A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. London: Printed for Longman andj. Taylor, 1830. -. A Treatise on Astronomy. London, 1833. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blan¬ chard, 1834. Holman, Harriet R. “Hog, Bacon, Ram, and Other ‘Savans’ in Eureka: Notes toward Decoding Poe’s Encyclopedic Satire.” Poe Newsletter 2 (Oct. ig6g): 49-55. -. “Splitting Poe’s ‘Epicurean Atoms’: Further Speculation on the Literary Sat¬ ire of Eureka. ” Poe Studies 5 (Dec. 1972):

33-37-

Holt, Palmer C. “Poe and H. N. Coleridge’s Greek Classic Poets: ‘Pinikidia,’ ‘Politian,’ and ‘Morelia’ Sources.” American Literature 34 (March 1962): 8—30. Humboldt, Friederich Heinrich Alexander von. Kosmos. Stuttgart, 1845. Cosmos. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845. A pirated translation. Poe had seen at least the first half of the first volume of this version (J[232n). -. Cosmos. Translated by Elise C. Otte. London: H. G. Bohn, 1849. Huxley, Aldous. Vulgarity in Literature. London: Chatto and Windus, 1930. Irwin, John T. American Hieroglyphics: The Symbol of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the American Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980. Kaufmann, William J„ III. Exploration of the Solar System. New York: Macmillan, 1978. Ketterer, David. “Protective Irony and ‘The Full Design’ of Eureka. ” In Poe as Literary Cosmologer: Studies on Eureka: A Symposium. Edited by Richard P. Benton, 46—55. Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1975. Krutch, Joseph Wood. Edgar Allan Poe: A Study in Genius. New York: Knopf, 1926. Laplace, Pierre-Simon. Exposition du systeme du monde. Paris: Impr. du Cercle-Social, An IV de la Republique francaise [1796]. Translation. London: Printed for Rich¬ ard Phillips, 1809. Levine, Stuart. Edgar Poe: Seer and Craftsman. Deland: Everett/Edwards, 1972. -. “Masonry, Impunity, and Revolution.” Poe Studies 17, 1 (June 1984): 22-23. _. “Poe and American Society.” Canadian Review of American Studies 9, 1 (Spring 1978): 16-33. --—. “Scholarly Strategy: The Poe Case.” American Quarterly 17 (Spring 1965): 13244. Levine, Stuart, and Susan F. Levine. “History, Myth, Fable, and Satire: Poe’s Use of Jacob Bryant.” ESQ: A Journal of the American Renaissance 21 (4th Quarter 1975): 197-213. -. “‘Howto’ Satire: Cervantes, Marryat, Poe.” Modem Language Studies 16 (Sum¬ mer 1986): 15-26.

•171-

BIBLIOGRAPHY Maddison, Carol Hopkins. “Poe’s Eureka. ” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 2 (i960): 350-67. Examines possible links of Eureka to Roger Boscovich, S.J., Theoria Philosophies Naturalis redacta, ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium (Vien¬

na, 1758, republished in Venice, 1763), to Alexander Humbolt, and to William Whewell’s Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (?; Maddison gives no dates). Mason, Edward S. “Fourier and Fourierism.” In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6, 402-4. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Mihalas, Dimitri, and James Binney. Galactic Astronomy: Structure and Kinematics. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1968, 1981. Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive; Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. New York: Har¬

per and Brothers, 1846. We use this edition because of the likelihood that Poe had access to it. Milton, John. “Comus.” In An Oxford Anthology of English Poetry. Edited by Howard Foster Lowry, Willard Thorp, and Howard C. Horsford. New York: Oxford Univer¬ sity Press, 1956. Moldenhauer, Joseph J., comp. A Descriptive Catalog of Edgar Allan Poe Manuscripts in the Humanities Research Library, the University of Texas at Austin. Austin: University of

Texas Press, 1973. Montaigne, Michel de, Essays. Translated by Charles Cotton; edited by W. Carew Hazlett, book 2, ch. 27. New York: A. L. Burt, n.d. Nelson, Roland, W. “Apparatus for a Definitive Edition of Poe’s Eureka. ”In Studies in the American Renaissance. Edited by Joel Myerson, 161-205. Boston: Twayne Pub¬

lishers, 1978. Nichol,John Pringle. Views of the Architecture of the Heavens. Edinburgh, 1837. Reprinted as Views of the Architecture of the Heavens: In a Series of Letters to a Lady. 2d ed. Edin¬ burgh: Tait, 1838. -. Views of Astronomy. New York: Greeley and McElrath, 1848. Omans, Glen A. “‘Intellect, Taste and the Moral Sense’: Poe’s Debt to Immanuel Kant.” In Studies in the American Renaissance. Edited byjoel Myerson, 123-68. Bos¬ ton: Twayne Publishers, 1980. Pannekoek, Antonie. A History of Astronomy. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1961. London: G. Allen Unwin, 1961. Pascal, Blaise. Pensees et opuscules. Edited by M. Leon Brunschvicg. Paris: Librairie Hachette 1923(F). -. Pensees / The Provincial Letters. Introduction by W. F. Trotter. New York: Mod¬ ern Library, 1941. Poe, Edgar Allan. Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vol. 1: Complete Poems. Edited by Thomas Ollive Mabbott. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. The Harvard volumes are numbered con¬ secutively. Volume 1 contains Poe’s poems, volumes 2 and 3, Tales & Sketches. In the Illinois reprint, there is no consecutive numbering. Thus a citation to “Collected

•172*

BIBLIOGRAPHY Works 3” directs readers either to volume 3 of the Harvard or the second volume of “Tales and Sketches” in the Illinois edition. Contents of the two editions are identical. -. Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vol. 2: Tales and Sketches, 1831-1842. Edit¬ ed by Thomas Ollive Mabbott. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. -. Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vol. 3: Tales and Sketches, 184 3-1849. Edited by Thomas Ollive Mabbott. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. -. Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by Burton R. Pollin. Vol. 1: The Imaginary Voyages: The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym / The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall / The Journal ofJulius Rodman. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981.

-. Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by Burton R. Pollin. Vol. 2: The Brevities: Pinakidia / Marginalia / Fifty Suggestions. New York: Gordian Press, 1985.

-. Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by Burton R. Pollin. Vols. 3 (text) and 4 (annotations): Writings in t/ieBroadwayJournal: Nonfictional Prose. New York: Gordian Press, 1986. -. Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Vols. 2-16. Edited byjames A. Harrison. New York: Crowell, 1902. -. Edgar Allan Poe / Thirty-Two Stories. Edited by Stuart Levine and Susan Levine. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2000. -. Essays and Reviews. Edited by G. R. Thompson. New York: Library of Ameri¬ ca, 1984. -. Eureka: A Prose Poem / New Edition with Line Numbers, Exploratory, Essay, and Bib¬ liographical Guide. Edited by Richard P. Benton. Hartford: Transcendental Books,

1973. A facsimile edition. -. The Letters of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited byjohn Ward Ostrom. Cambridge: Har¬ vard University Press, 1948. 2 vols. Reprint with supplement. New York: Gordian Press, 1966. -. The Rationale of Verse. Edited byj. Arthur Greenwood. Princeton: Wolfhart Book, 1968. Although Greenwood says modestly that he will withdraw his book when a good edition of the essay appears, he should not. His book is too useful and goes into matters which, although not appropriate for a general edition, are interesting. The volume is also charming, quirky, and frank. -. The Raven and Other Poems. Edited by Thomas Ollive Mabbott. New York: Facsimile Text Society, 1942. A facscimile of the 1845 edition of Poe’s poems: T. Lorimer Graham’s copy with Poe’s handwritten corrections. -. The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by Harold Beaver. New York: Pen¬ guin, 1976. -. The Short Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe / An Annotated Edition. Edited by Stuart Levine and Susan Levine. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 197®- Reprint- Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990. -. Tales by Edgar A. Poe. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1845.

•17 3

-

BIBLIOGRAPHY -. The Works of Edgar Allan Poe. Edited by Edmund Clarence Stedman and George Woodberry. Chicago: Stone and Kimball, 1894—96. 10 vols. There are several lat¬ er reprints; we used the 18g6 volume. Pollin, Burton R. “Contemporary Reviews of Eureka: A Checklist.” Part 1. American Transcendental Quarterly 26 (Spring 1975): 26-30.

-. Dictionary of Names and Titles in Poe’s Collected Works. New York: Da Capo Books, 1968. -. Discoveries inPoe. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1970 (see esp. “Poe’s Iron Pen,” 206-29). -. “Empedocles in Poe: A Contribution of Bielfeld.” Poe Studies 12 (Dec. 1979): 8-9. -. ‘“MS. Found in a Bottle’ and Sir David Brewster’s Letters: A Source.” Poe Stud¬ ies 15 (Dec. 1982): 40-41.

-. Poe, Creator of Words. Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, The Edgar Allan Poe Society and the Library of the University of Baltimore, 1974. Reprint, revised and augmented. Bronxville: Nicholas T. Smith, 1980. -. “Poe’s Use of Material from Bemardin de Saint-Pierre’s Etudes. ” Romance Notes 12, no. 2 (1971): 1-8. -. “Politics and History in Poe’s ‘Mellonta Tauta’: Two Allusions Explained.” Studies in Short Fiction 8 (Fall 1971): 627-31.

-. Word Index to Poe’s Fiction. New York: Gordian Press, 1982. Posey, Meredith Neill. “Notes on Poe’s ‘Hans Pfaal.’” Modem Language Notes 45 (Dec. 193°): 501-7Quinn, Arthur Hobson. Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography. New York: Appleton Century, 1941. Quinn, Patrick, ed. Edgar Allan Poe / Poetry and Tales. New York: Library of America, 1984. Ravetz, Jerome R., and I. Grattan-Guinness. “Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier.” In Dic¬ tionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 5, 93-99. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,

1972. Rees, Abraham. Rees’s Manufacturing Industry, 1819-20: A Selection from The Cyclopae¬ dia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. Edited by Neil Cossons.

[Newton Abbot, Eng.]: David and Charles Reprints, 1972. Ronan, Colin A. Astronomers Royal. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969. Roughgarden, Jonathan. Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An In¬ troduction. New York: Macmillan, 1979.

Schemske, Douglas W. “Limits to Specialization and Coevolution in Plant-Animal Mutualisms.” In Coevolution. Edited by Matthew H. Nitecki, 67-iog. Chicago: Uni¬ versity of Chicago Press, 1983. Schofield, Robert E. Mechanism and Materialism: British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. St. Armand, Barton Levi. “‘Seemingly Intuitive Leaps’: Belief and Unbelief in Eure¬ ka. ” In Poe as Literary Cosmologer: Studies on Eureka: A Symposium. Edited by Richard

P. Benton, 4-15. Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1975.

• 1 7 4 ‘

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sticker, Bernhard. “Friedrich Wilhelm August Argelander.” In The Dictionary of Scien¬ tific Biography. Vol. 1, 240-43. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.

Walker, I. M., ed. Edgar Allan Poe: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. “[John Milton Evans], from a review in the Amherst College Indi¬ cator,^eb. 1849, 193-9.”

Wheelwright, Philip, ed. The Presocratics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, ig6o. Williams, Henry Smith. The Great Astronomers. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930. Wilson, James Southall. “Poe’s Philosophy of Composition.” North American Review 223 (Dec.-Jan.-Feb. 1926-27): 675-84. Yannella, Donald. “Writing the ‘Other Way’: Melville, the Duyckinck Crowd, and Literature for the Masses.” In A Companion to Melville Studies. Edited byjohn Bry¬ ant, 63-81. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1986.

•17 5

-

INDEX

Items indexed from die text of Eureka are listed by page number. The paragraphs of the text are numbered. Items indexed from our notes to Eureka are listed both by page and paragraph number. Thus “162 2 2gn” refers to a note to paragraph 229 on page 162. Items indexed from the “Introduction” to Eureka are by page. A small n in that portion of the book refers to a sequential note on the page indicated: “xv n2.” American Whig Review, 158 n2i6. See also

Act(s), Divine, 24, 25, 68; first and most sublime of, 62; First, 95; origi¬

“American Drama, The” Analogy, xviii, 70, 71, 89, 90, 91, 100,

nating, 99. See also Creation

143 11153, 144 m6o, 160 n22o, 161

Adams, John Couch, 152 nig3 Adaptation, Divine, 61, 88, 89, 138-39 ni 14, 140 11133, 157 n2i6, 158 n2i6, 158, 11217. See also Bridgewater

n222 Anaximander, xiii, xiv Andes, 18

Aether, 151 ni82. See also Erebus

Angel, 82, 154 n202 Archangel, 83, 84, 154 n202

Aetna (Etna), 7, 117-18 n7

Archimedes, 117 n on Title

Agathos, 166 n243- See also “Power of

Argelander, Friedrich Wilhelm, DLX

Treatises The; Reciprocity

Words” “Aires Tottle,” 9, 10, 11, 120 m 2, 122

stellarum fixarum positiones mediae ineunte anno 1830, and Uber die eigene Bewegung des Sonnensystems. . ., 93,

ni4> See also Aristotle Alcyone, 90, 160 n220

163 n23i Aristophanes, “The Clouds,” 145 ni62

Alpha Lyrae, 84, 85, 86, 155 n204,

Aristotelians, 12

n205, n2og Alterton, Margaret, Origins of Poe’s Criti¬

Aristotle, 9, 10, 120 n 12, 121 m3, 122

Alcmaeon, On Nature, 152 nigi

ni4

cal Theory, 127 n24, 153-54 nig8,

“Assignation, The,” 153 mg4

154 nigg, 154 n20i, 169. See also

Asteroid(s), 58, 80, 83, 115, 147 ni73,

Dick, Thomas, The Christian Philosopher -, and Hardin Craig, Edgar Allan

152 ni93 Astrea, 80, 152 0193. See also

Poe, 163 n23i, 169 “American Drama, The,” 158 n2i6,

Asteroid (s) Astronomische Jarbuch, 153 11193. See also

158 n2i8 American socialist utopian communi¬

Atkinson, Charles Milner, Jeremy

ties, 159 n220

Bode, Johann Elert; Bode, Law of Bentham, 125 n 18, 169

•17 7-

INDEX Atkinson’s Casket, 131 1157. See also Elec¬

“Bells, The,” 138 ngo

tricity Atom(s), xvii, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,

Bentham,Jeremy, 12, 125 ni8 Bentham’s Udlitarianism, 138 ni 11

30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 55, 62, 64, 94, 95,

Benton, Richard P., ed., Eureka a Prose Poem, 173; Poe as Literary Cosmologer,

169

102, 130 1145, 130 049, 130 1150, 132 1158 (see also Boscovich, Ruggiero

“Berenice,” 117 n Preface, 119 ni 1

Giuseppi [Rogerjoseph]), 1371187,

Berman, Louis, and J. C. Evans, Explor¬ ing the Cosmos, 148 0178, 169

138 111193-95, 138 11111; Epicurian,

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Etudes, 119

70, 147 11171; original, 71, 131 n$2\

nil. See also Pollin, Burton R.

system-atoms, 72, 100, 166 0246;

Bessel, Friedrich Wilhelm, 155 n2og,

Titanic, 72, 100, 148 11174 Attraction, xxiii, xxv, xxxiii, 28, 29, 30,

155~5^ risog, 159 n220, 163 0231 Bethune, John Drinkwater, Life of Kepler,

32, 33, 48, 54, 63, 79, 95, 102, 109, 115, 132 n58, 163 n23i, 168 m2

127 n24 Biblical allusions: Daniel, 10, 122 m3;

Auroras, 63, 143 ni55, 143 0156

I Corinthians, 83, 101, 1540202,

Awful present, the, 100

166 0250; Genesis, 11, 23, 48, 123

Azote, 158 11217

ni6, 130 045, 139 ni 18; Isaiah, 110, Bacon, Delia Salter, 121 m3

168 n5; John, 5, 117 n Preface; Luke,

Bacon, Dr. Leonard, 121 m3

61, 143 0151-53; Matthew, 69, 147

Baconianism, 11

m6g; Revelation, 110, 168 05 Bielfeld, Baron Jacob Friedrich, Les

Bacon, Sir Francis, 12, 121 m3, 122 m3, 122 ni4

premier traits de l’erudition uni-

Bailey’s beads, 143 n 155

verselle. . . / Elements of Universal Eru¬

Badly, 30

dition. . . , 21, 129 n40, 132 058,

Badly, J. Sylvain, 133 n62

169-70

Baily, Francis, 133 n62

“Big Bang” theory, xxi, 143 0153, 146

“Balloon-Hoax, The,” 118 n7

11165

Bathurst Island, 144 0157. See also Mel¬ ville islands

Mark

Baudelaire, Charles Pierre, xii n5

Birr Casde (telescope), 157 n2i3- See

Beauty, xiii, xiv, xv, xxii, xxiii, 5, 118 n7, 159 n2i8

also Rosse, Lord

Blackwood, Mr., 134 071, 152 nigi

Beaver, Harold, ed., The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, 132 n58, 136 n77,

“Bilgewater,” 140 ni33. See also Twain,

Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 121

m3

137 078, 137 n84, 140 11134, M1

Bode, Johann Elert, 153 mg3

ni35, 14411157, 144 n 161, 152

Bode, Law of (Bode’s Law; Titius-Bode

nl93> 153 ni93> 155 n2°9> 156 0213, 1580218, 1590220, 173

Law), 80, 152-53 11193, 153 nl93 Body, 28, 30, 32, 61, 95, 114, 137 1178;

Bedlamite, 14

“The Body and the Soul,” xxiii, 54,

Beginning(s), 17, 21, 24, 48, 51,89, 99, 139 ni 18

63, 1400133. See also Attraction;

Being, Divine, 105. See also God

Electricity; Gravity “Bon-Bon,” 120 m 2

178-

INDEX Carlson, Eric, The Recognition of Edgar

Book of Truths, 5 Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppi (Roger Joseph), xxiii, xxiv, 132 058. See also Maddison, Carol Hopkins

Allan Poe, xxii n l, 169

Carlyle, Thomas, Sartor Resartus, xi, 124 1118

Brandon, Ruth, The Spiritualists, 132

Cassiopeia, 74, 148 0178

n57> 17° Brewster, Sir David, 144-45 n 161, 170;

Cavendish, Henry, 30, 133 n62 Ceres, 80. See also Asteroid (s)

reference to Optics, Letter on Magic,

Champollion, Jean Francois, 15, 126

and articles in Edinburgh Encyclopedia,

n23 Chaos, 151 11182 “Chapter of Suggestions, A,” 122 ni4

161 11223; reference to review of Comte, 146 0163 Bridgewater Treatises, The, 140 m 33, 154

Cicero, De Natura Deorum, xiii; “Tusculan Disputations,” 152 11191

nig8, 157 n2i6, 158 n2i7, 158

Cincinnati, telescope of, 67, 145 n 163

n2i8 Broadway Journal: announcement of New

York edition of Cosmos, 118 ng; discus¬

Cist, Charles, Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati, 145 ni63, 170

sion of Poe’s rewording of translation

“Cloud-Land of Metaphysics,” 66, 145

of Kosmos, 164 0232; on “fancy” and

ni62 Coleridge, Ernest Hartley, ed., The Com¬

“imagination,” 128 n35; reference to “mind’s eye,” 155 n203; reference to Nichol in review of Tayler Lewis, Plato Contra Athosa. . ., 163 0230

plete Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 145 n 162, 170 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 128 035, 135

Brook Farm, 159 11220

n7i; “Fancy in Nubibus, or the Poet

Browne, Sir Thomas, 120 ni 2, 170. See

in the Clouds,” 145 ni62. See also “Cloud-Land of Metaphisics”

also Sneezing

Brunschvicg, M. Leon, 129 n3g, 172.

“Coloquy of Monos and Una, The,” xiii, 148 n 174

See also Pascal, Blaise, Pensees

Bryant, Jacob, A New System; or, An Anal¬ ysis of Antient Mythology, 31, ngnii,

133 n65, 170

Columbia Spy, 157 11213. See also Rosse,

Lord Comte, Auguste, 65, 67; Traite d’astronomicpopulaire, and Corns de

Bryant, William Cullen, “The Bat-

philosophic positive, 144—45 n 161, 146

defield,” 117 n Preface Ernest Maltravers, 148 0174; Pelham or

11163 “Concentralization,” 31, 39, 137 n85

Adventures of a Gentleman, 160 n220

“Concentrated Self,” 105

Bulwer-Lytton, Edward George Earle,

Burton’s, 128 n27

Condensation, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 62,

Butler, Benjamin F., 117 n Preface

63, 65, 67, 68, 88, 115 Connor, Frederick W., “Poe and John

Cant: cant of “philosophies,” 30, 122 m3, 161 n22o; issue of a Cfor a K, 10, 120—21 m2. See also Kant, Im¬ manuel Cantalupo, Barbara, “Eureka: Poe’s Nov¬ el Universe,” xv n2, 170

Nichola,” 135 n75, 135 n76, 163 n23o, 170 “Conqueror Worm, The,” 168 n5 Consistency, xvii, 15, 49, 96 “Conversation of Eiros and Charmion, The,” 110, 154 n20i

•179-

INDEX “Copernican principle,” 148 ni77

and Other Sketches, Illustrative of Every¬

Correspondences, i6on220

day Life and Every-day People, 120 n 12

“Cosmogony” (Encyclopedia Britannica

Dick, Thomas, The Christian Philosopher, 150 ni8o, 153 nig8, 154 nigg, 154

entry, i960), 147 0173 Cosmos/Kosmos, xi, xii, xiv, xxiv, xxvii, 8,

n20i, 170; Practical Astronomer, 150 ni8o

118 ng, 148 0178, 149-50 0179, 155-56 11209, 163 n23i, 163-64 0232. See also Humboldt, Baron

Difference, 24, 25, 27, 28, 45. See also

Friedrich Heinrich Alexander von

Diffusion, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 37, 38,

No-difference; Unity

Cossons, Neil. See Rees, Abraham

39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 52, 54, 65, 88,

Cotopaxi, 118 n7

101, 110, 159 n22o; Self-Diffusion,

Cowley, Malcolm, xii ni

105, 167 n266. See also Volition/Di¬

Craig, Hardin. SeeAlterton, Margaret,

vine Volition Disraeli, Isaac, Curiosities of Literature,

and Hardin Craig Craigie, William, 123 ni5

120 m2, 170

Creation, xvii, xx, 23, 68, gg, 103, 146

Divine Hand, 61. See also God “Domain of Arnheim, The,” xiii, xv,

ni65, 147 ni73, 159 n2i8, 160 n220, i66n243- See also Act(s)

118 n7 Draper, John William, 121 m3, 122

Creator, 32, 104. See also God Creon, 148 n 174

m3

Cross, the (constellation), 74, 148

“Dream within a Dream, A,” 166 n256

ni78

Dupin, 118 ng, 137 n8g, 122 ni4, 147

Cullen, William, First Lines of the Practice of Physic, 132 n57

n71, 159 n218. See also “Murders in the Rue Morgue, The”; “Purloined Letter, The”

Cygni (61 Cygni), 86, 155-56 n2og

Duration, 87, 157 n2i4- See also Space Darwin, Charles, 144 n 160

Dyer, Oliver, 162 n22g. See also Nichol,

Davy, John, Memories of the Life of Sir

John Pringle

Humphry Davy, Bart, 117 n Preface

Dayan, Joan, Fables of Mind, 165 n237, 170; use of dashes, 139 ni2 2

Edinburgh Review, i44ni6i, 151 ni82

Einstein, Albert, xx, xxi

Declaration of Independence, 120 n 12, 143 ni52

“Eleanora,” 119 ni 1 Electricity, xiii, xiv, xxi, xxii, 27, 28, 53,

Deity, the, 20, 22; finger of, 61. See also God Democratic Review, 117 n Preface

62-64, 99-101,131-32 057, 135 1177. See also Heat; Light; Magnetism Ellison, xiii, xv, 118 n7, 118 ng. See also

Democritus, 147 ni7i

“Domain of Arnheim, The”; “Land¬

De Quincy, Thomas, 137 n87

scape Garden, The”

Descartes, Rene, 129 n37, 159 11220 “Descent into the Maelstrom, A,” 165 0238

Emerson, John Milton, review, xxv. See also Walker, I. M. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 129 044, 135

Dial, The, 135 n7i

Dickens, Charles (Boz), Watkins Tottle

n75> 142 nni5i-53, 166 0256, 170; “The American Scholar,” 161 n222;

• 1 8 o •

INDEX “Blight,” xvi, xvii, xxii, 120 nil, 122

First Cause, 19, 48, 60, 94, 157 n2i6

ni4; Nature, 136 1177, 144 ni6o, 161

“First Thing, ”7, 163 0230

n222; “The Poet,” 166 0243

Flora, 80. See also Asteroid (s) “Flying Dutchman,” 147 ni66. See also

Emersonian Oversoul, 166 0256. See

“MS. Found in a Bottle”

also Oversoul

Empedocles, 129039

Folio Club, 123 ni7, 128 n27

Encke, Johann Franz, 156 n2io

Forrest, William Mentzel, Biblical Allu¬

Encke’s comet (Johann Franz Encke), 97, 165 0239. See also “Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall, The”

sions in Poe, 122 m3, 170

“Four Beasts in One—The Homocameleopard,” 133 n65 Fourier, Francois Marie-Charles, xxvii,

End, 17, 21, 88, 94, 99, 100, 101

90, 159-60 n2 20

Epicurian atoms, 70, 147 0171 Epicurus, 123 ni7, 130 049, 1470171

Fourier, Jean Baptiste, 159-60 n220

Erebus, 76, 151 ni82

Franklin, Benjamin, xxii

Eta Herculis, 90, 161 n2 2i

Fraser’s Magazine, 141 ni40

Eternity, 104, 105

“Furrier,” 159 ni20. See also “Mellonta

Ether, xviii, xxii, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102,

Tauta” (in Greek) Future, 35, 61, 72, 100, 136 n77, 148

132 n57 (“aether”), i66n243 “Ettrick shepherd, the,” 10, 121-22 m3

n 174. See also “Mellonta Tauta” (in

Euclid, 9, 13, 49, 121 m2

Greek)

Euler, Leonhard, 165 0242 Eveleth, George W., 107, 108, 121-22

Galaxy, the, 73, 74, 75, 89, 90, 91, 92, 148-49 ni78, 150 ni7g, 161 n220

m3 Evening Mirror, 134071, 1570213

Galle, Johann Gottfried, 152 mg3

Evil, 104 Evolution, 144 m 60, 158 n2i7- See also

Gerson,Jean Charlier, 129 n3g God/God’s/gods, xiii, xvii n3, xx, xxii, 15, 16, 17, 21, 27, 35, 36, 37, 44, 48,

Reciprocity

52, 60, 61, 62, 68, 77, 89, 101, 103, “Fall of the House of Usher, The,” 135

104, 105, 106, 117, 129041, 129 044, 130 045, 131 054, 135 076,

n77 Fancy/Fancies, 20, 128 n35, 77, 90;

138 ni 11, 139 ni 18, 142 0151, 142-

other references to, 9, 16, 31, 54, 60,

43 00151-53, 143 0152, 151 ni87,

62, 65, 66, 87, 89, 92, 94, 96, 101,

152 nigi, 157 n2i6, 158 n2i8, 163

164 n232; poetic, 99. See also Imagi¬

0230, 166 0250, 166 11256, 167 0259, 167 n266. See also Volition

nation

Godey, Louis, ed., Godey’s Lady’s Book,

Faraday, Michael, xxi n5

119 1111, 122 m3

Fate, Inexorable, 104

Godhead, xvii n3, xxi n6, 21, 129 041,

Fatquak, 1390122

142 00151-53, 166 0256, 167 n25g

“Fifty Suggestions,” 160 n22 2 Finger of God/Deity, 61, 62, 142 ni5i, 142-43 n 151-53. See also God Finite, the, 19 Finity, 19, 52. See also Infinity

Godwin, Parke, A Biography of William Cullen Bryant, 117 n Preface, 171

Godwin, William, Mandeville, 117 n Preface

• 1 8 1 •

INDEX Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 135 n7i

Heterogeneity, 24, 27, 53, 62, 64, 88,

Graham’s, 131 n57

“the great Now, ” 100

98, 101 Heterogeneous, the, 28, 64

Gruener, Gustav, “Poe’s Knowledge of

Hieroglyphics, 15, 126023. See also Champollion, Jean Frangois; Irwin,

German,” 164 n232, 171

John T., American Hieroglyphics Halley, Edmund, 165 n242

Higeia, 152 0193. See also Asteroid(s)

Halley’s comet, 165 n239

“highway of the Constant, ”xvi, 15

Happiness, 105

Him, 22, 61. See also God; Spirit

Harrison, James A., ed., Complete Works

Himself, individualizations of, 105. See also Being, Divine; God

of Edgar Allan Poe, vols. 2-16, xxix,

Hodgens, Richard, 126 023, 134 n68,

xxxiii, 173; vol. 8, 140 ni33, 151 ni82, 155 n203; vol. 13, 126 n20 Harris, Wilson, Palace of the Peacock, xi Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of

135 n75> M1 nl37> 141 nl38, 142 11149, *43 ni55> 144 nl57> x44 ni6o, 146 0163, 148 0173, 150 ni8i, 152 0193, 161 n22i, 163

Time, xxi n6, 171

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, xxv, 159 n2 20

0230, 169

Heart Divine, 103, 166 n256

Hoffman, Charles F., 141 0135, 152

Heat, 27, 28, 44, 62, 63, 64, 89, 99,

mgi Hog(s), 10, 11, 14; Francis Bacon and,

i°9> i3!-32 n57, 159 n22o, 168 ns. See also Electricity; Light; Magnetism

Heaven(s), 13, 39, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 90, 91, 92, 98, 149-50 ni79, 168 ns Hebe, 80. See also Asteroid(s)

121-22 m3 Hogg, Janies, 121-22 m3 Hog-ites, 11, 12, 121-22 m3, 123 ni5 Holman, Harriet, “Splitting Poe’s Epi-

Hemera (Day), 151 m82. See also

curian Atoms,” 118 n7, 159 n2 2o;

Erebus

“Hog, Bacon, Ram,” 121 m3, 124 ni8, 171

Henry, Rev. Francis, Eighth Earl of Bridgewater, 140 0133. See also

Home Journal, The, xxv

Bridgewater Treatises, The

Homogeneity, 24. See also Hetero¬

Hermes Trismegistus, 129 039

geneity

Herschell (Herschel), Sir John, 93, 94,

95. 135 n73> !58 11217, 163 n23o, 163 11231; Outlines of Astronomy, 134 n65, 149 ni78; A Preliminary Dis¬

Hooper, W. (M.D.), 129 n40, 170. See also Bielfeld, Baron Jacob Friedrich

Hopkins, John H., Jr., review, xxv. See also Literary World

course on the Study of Natural Philoso¬ phy, 136 n77; “Sound,” in Encyclopedia Metropolitana: Physical Astronomy. Sound. Light., n 134 n65; A Treatise on

“How to Write a Blackwood Article,” xiv, 124 1117, 130 050, 134 n7i, 152 11191 Humboldt, Baron Friedrich Heinrich

Astronomy, 118 n7, 146 n 165, 150

Alexander von, xi, xii, xiv, xvi, xx,

11179, 15° 11180, 161-62 n2 27, 164

xxiv, xxvii, 8, 93, 117, 118 ng, 126

0234, 164 n235 Herschell (Herschel), Sir William (fa¬ ther of Sir John), 87; discussion of Poe’s spelling error, 156-57 n2i3

n23, 148 ni78, 149-50 ni79, 15556 n2og, 163 n23i, 163-64 n232, 171; dedication, 3; note to dedica¬ tion, 117

•182-

INDEX Hume, David, 13, 125 nig

Kepler, Johannes, 15, 16, 7g, 80, g8,

Hume,Joseph, 125 nig

log, 111, 126 n22, 126-27 n23, 128

Hurst-Wakeman copy of Eureka, xxxi,

n24, 151 nigo, 151 nigi, 1530^3, 167 n2, 168 n8; HarmoniceMundi,

xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv Huxley, Aldous, Vulgarity in Literature, xix, 171

127 n24 Ketterer, David, “Protective Irony and ‘The Full Design’ of Eureka, ”118 n7,

Idrisi, al, Geographia nubiensis, 1 lg ni 1 Imagination(s), 11, 15, 21, 32, 36, 70, 82, 103; and fancy, 77, g2, 128 n35

171 Koenigsburg Observatory, 155 n2og. See also Bessel, Friedrich Wilhelm Kosmos. See Cosmos; Humboldt, Baron

Immutability, 51. See also Truth (s)

Friedrich Heinrich Alexander von.

“Imp of the Perverse, The,” xvii, xviii Imparticularity, 23, 62, 130 045, 143

Krutch, Joseph Wood, Edgar Allan Poe,

nl53 Infinite, the, 77, 8g

xxvii, 171 Kuiper, G. P., “Cosmogony,” 147 n 173

Infinity, 17,18, lg, 20, 21, 41, 52, gi, Lagrange, Comte Joseph Louis, g8, 165

92, 94. 105> 151 nl85 Injustice, Divine, 104

n242

Instinct, xii, 20, 8g, g5, g6, g7, gg. See

“Landscape Garden, The,” 118 n7 Laplace, Pierre Simon, xxi n6, 15, 36,

also Symmetry

56, 107, log, 126 n22, 140-41

Intelligence (s), g, 77, 101, 104, 105,

0135, 141 0140, 145 11161, 145

106, 154 nigg, isgn2i8

0163, 146 0163, 147 ni7o, 147

Intuition, xiv, 14, 15, 22, 34, 35, 122

ni72, i5g n220, 165 0242; Exposi¬

m3, 122 ni4, 127 n23, i2g n44 Iris, 80. See also Asteroid (s)

tion du systeme du monde, 140 0134;

Irrelation, 3g, 42, 51. See also

Mecanique analytique, 140 11134;

Relation (s) Irwin, John T., American Hieroglyphics,

Mecanique celeste, 136 n77; Nebular

126 n23, 171 “Island of the Fay, The,” 167 n266

ni34, 147 ni7i, 163 n23o; Nebular

Cosmogony, 54, 62, 66, 6g, 70, 140 Hypothesis, 66, 67, 68, 108, 140 0134; Nebular Theory, 60, 62, 65,

Jefferson, Thomas, xxii, 143 0152

67, 163 11230 Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent, 158 11217

Jehovah, 106. See also God

Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 36; Law of

Jackson, Andrew, 117 n Preface

Continuity, 136 1177

Joe/uJoe,” 13, 125 nig

Joy, 105 Juno, 80. See also Asteroid (s)

“Letter to B— ,” 167 n25g Leverrier, Urbain Jean Joseph, 152

Jupiter, 58, 70, 80, 82, 83, 110, 112, 113, 142 11147, *52 nig3, 168 ng

ni93 Leverrier’s planet (Neptune), 83, 152

Kant, Immanuel, g, 121 m2, 122 m3,

mg3> *54 n2°2 Leviathan (telescope), 157 11213. See

140 ni34, 155 n204, 160-61 n220 Kaufmann, William J., Ill, Exploration of the Solar System, 145 n 163, 171

also Rosse, Lord

Levine, Stuart, Edgar Poe: Seer and Crafts¬ man, 120 1111, 131 n57, 134 n68,

•183-

INDEX 143 1111151-53, 171; “Poe and Soci¬

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of the Universe), 123-24

ety,” xxiv n8, 171 -, and Susan F. Levine, eds.: “His¬

ni7, 130 049, 130 050

tory, Myth, Fable, and Satire: Poe’s Use of Jacob Bryant,” 119 mi, 133

Mabbott, Thomas Ollive (TOM), xxix, xxxi, 121 ni2, 123 ni5, 123 m6,

n05, 171; ‘“How to’ Satire: Cer¬ vantes, Marryat, Poe,” 152 nigi, 171;

123 ni7, 125 m8, 126 n20, 126

The Short Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe/An

n23, 128 n27, 128 n2g, 129 n3g,

Annotated Edition, xiv, xviii, xxix, 118

129 n40, 133 n62, 134 n7i, 135

n7, ngnii, i2oni2, 129 n4i, 130

075, 136 077, 141 0140, 143 0155,

045, 130 nso, 133 n65, 134 n68,

144 0157, 148 0174, 148 ni78, 153

135-36 n77> 139 ni22, 142 0149, 147 ni66, 147 ni7i, 147 ni73, 151

mg3, 157 n2i3, 161 0227, 166 0250

-, ed.: Collected Works of Edgar Al¬

m82, 152 nigi, 153 mg4, 155 0204, 1580217, 1590220, 161

lan Poe, xxix; vol. 1, Complete Poems,

n220, 161 n222, 162 n227, 165

128 n2g, 140 ni33, 143 0156, 147

0237, 165 0238, 166 0243, 173;

0173, 172; vol. 2, Tales and Sketches,

Thirty Two Stories, xxix, 118 n7, 119

1831-42, ngnii, 120ml, 123

nil, 129 n4i, 130 nso, 133 065, 134 n68, 136 077, 139 ni22, 142

ni7, 128 n27, 129 041, 130 050,

0149, 147 ni66, 147 ni7i, 147

135 1171, 135 077, 138 n8g, 147 ni66, 147 0171, 152, nigi, 161

m73, 151 nl82> 152 nigi, 153 mg4, 155 0204, 159 n220, 161

n266, 172-73; vol. 3, Tales and Sketch¬

0223, 163 11230, 165 0238, 167

n220, 161 n222, 165 0238, 166

es, 1843-49, i°7> 108, n8n7, 119

nil, 120 m2, 122 ni4, 127 024,

11243. 173 Life, 106; Life-Everlasting 5; 117 n

128 n25, 130 045, 134 n68, 139

Preface

m22, 142 0149, 147 0173, 151

“Ligeia,” 129 041

ni82, 155 0204, 158 n2i7, 159

Light, 28, 38, 41,44, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69,

n220,161 n220, 161 n222, 165

76, 77, 86, 87, 91, 99, 124 ni7, 13132 1157, 137 n83, 137 n84, 143 11152, M3 nl55>

145

172-73 Maddison, Carol Hopkins, “Poe’s Eure¬

m63, 150

11179, i5om8i, 153 0194, 156 n2og, 156 n21 o, 156 n213. See also Electricity; Heat; Magnetism 139 ni22, 142 0149 series on Richard Locke, 157 0213 Logic, 12, 13, 14, 29, 50, 102, 121 m3,

Lovett, Richard, Electrical Philosopher, 131-32 057

164 0232, 172

92, 93- 93; Poe’s note, 94- 99>

160

n220, 161 11221, 161 n222, 163

“Literati, The,” 150 ni8o; reference to

“Loss of Breath,” 117 n Preface

ka, ’’xxiii, xxiv, 148 0178, 149 ni7g,

Madler, Johann Heinrich von, 90, 91,

“Literary Life of Thingum Bob, The,”

124 n 18. See also Mill, John Stuart

0237, 166 0243, 167 n2, 168 05,

11231 Magnetism, xxiii, 27, 28, 36, 62, 99, 131-32 057, 135 n77_ See also Elec¬ tricity; Heat; Light “majestic highway of the Consistent, ” xvi, 15 Manhood, epoch of, 104, 105

•184,

INDEX Many, 23, 68, 95. See also One

Mihalas, Dimitri, and James Binney,

Mare Tenebrarum, 9, 1191m, 133 1165

Galactic Astronomy, I50ni7g, 172

“Marginalia,” 119 nil, 1251119, 134

Milky Way, 73, 74, 87, 92, 94, 137 n87,

n7i, 136 n77> i39nil4> i39nl22, 140 ni33, 145 11162, 157 n2i6, 158 n2i7, 158-59 n2i8, i6on22o

i48ni78, i4gni7g, i5oni7g, 160 n220 Miller, 12, 124-25 ni8. See also Mill,

Mars, 59, 80, 83, 142 ni47, 152 mg3

John Stuart Miller, Joe, Joe Miller’s Jest Book, 125 1118,

Maskelyne, Nevil, 30, 67; Poe’s note,

125 nig. See also Mill, John Stuart

132 n62, 146 ni63 Mason, Edward S., “Fourier and Fou¬ rierism,” 160 n22o, 172 Material, the (as opposed to the spiritu¬

Mill, James, 125 ni8; Human Mind, 154 mg8 Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic, 12, 13, 14, 121 m3, 123-24 ni7, 124-

al), 28, 54, 77, 104. See also Body;

25 ni8, 125 nig, 140 ni33, 172

Soul Matter, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii n3, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxxiii, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 40, 41,42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 63, 65, 82, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101,

Milton, John, “Comus,” quoted, 123 ni6; Paradise Lost, 154 n202, 172 Mind, xii, 18, 19, 28, 30, 32, 36, 44, 50, 82, 84, 87, 102, 106, 117 n Preface, 155 11203

102, 104, 129 044, 130 045, 131 n54’ !32 058, 136 n77, 137 n87, 138 ni 11, 140 ni34, 142 nn 151-52,

Mitchell, John, xxi n6

147 ni7o, 148 ni74, 148 ni75, 149

Monos, xiii, xiv. See also “The Colloquy

Modernization, xxiv of Monos and Una”

ni78, 151 ni82, 155 n202, 166

Montaigne, Michel de, Essays, 120 ni 2,

11243 Maxwell, James Clerk, xxi 115

129 n39, 172 “MS. Found in a Bottle,” 147 ni66, 165

Median law, lo, 12 2 n 13 “Mellonta Tauta” (in Greek), xiv, 72,

0238

148 ni74 Melville, Herman: language in Moby-

Mt. Schehallion, 30, 132 n62 “Muddler.” See Madler, Johann Hein¬

Dick, xxvi; later work, including Billy

rich von; “Mellonta Tauta” (in

Budd, xix; Moby-Dick and Pierre, xi, xii;

Greek)

reception of Moby-Dick, xxiv-xxv; ref¬ erence to Moby-Dick, 139 ni 18; syn¬

122 ni4, 137-38 n8g, 147 m7i, 153

Omoo, 144 ni57

Melville islands, 64; Melville Island, 144 ni57 “Memories of a Destiny,” 103-5

n8g, 160 n220

111, 113-14, 115, 142 ni47> 144 ni6o, 152 nigs, 153 0193, 168 n6

“Metzengerstein,” 133 n65

nig4, 163 n23o “Mystery of Marie Roget, The,” xix, 138 “Mystification,” xviii

Mercury, 59, 63, 65, 70, 80, 83, 110,

“Mesmeric Revelation,” 130 n45

131 n52. See also Relation(s); Unity “Murders in the Rue Morgue, The,” 40,

tax in early work, xviii; Typee and

Mesmerism, xxiii, 36, 135 nyy

Multiplicity, 24, 26, 35, 53, 129 n44,

Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, The, xix,

xix n4, 165 n238 Nature, 41,49, 60, 62, 132 n57, 143 ni52, 166 n243

•185-

INDEX Neal,John, 134 nyi Nebular Cosmogony/Hypothesis/The¬

No-difference, 27, 131 056. See also Dif¬ ference; Unity Nothing, 22

ory. See Laplace, Pierre Simon Nelson-Mabbott copy of Eureka, xxxii,

Noumena, 10

xxxiv Nelson, Roland, “Apparatus for a

Nubian Geographer, 9, 119 ni 1. See also Idrisi, al

Definitive Edition,” xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 172 Neptune, 55, 56, 57, 63, 70, 80, 81, 83,

Nux (night), 151 ni82. See also Erebus Olbers, Heinrich, 150 ni8i Omans, Glen A., “Intellect, Taste and

84, tog, 114, 115, 141 ni40, 142

the Moral Sense: Poe’s Debt to Im¬

ni47, 152 nig3, 154^02 Nereid (moon of Neptune), 141 11140

manuel Kant,” 121 m2, 128 035,

“Neuclid.” See Euclid; “Mellonta Tauta” (in Greek)

172 Omnipotence, 23, 47 Omniscience, 47

Newton, Sir Isaac/Newtonian Gravity, xx, xxiii, xxiv, 15, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34,

One, xvii n3, xxiii, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33,

35. 36- 37> 39- 41- 43- 45- 49- 51- 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 71, 79, 80, 90, 91,95, 96, 109, 111, 125

35- 51- 68, 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 102, 106, 131 052, 134-35 n7U 138 mil, 166 0243. See also Many; Mat¬ ter; Poetry; Spirit; Truth (s)

nig, 126 n23, 127 n23, 132 n57, 133 n62, 136 n77, 137 n78, 137

Oneness, xv, xvii, xx, 7, 23, 26, 29, 100,

n84, 140 ni34, 140-41 0135, 143

102, 129 41, 130 n5o, 134-35 n7i Oriental, tribal, and mystical religions,

0152, 151 ni82, 151 nigi, 153 11193, 15511202, 159-60 n220, 165

142 00151-53; mystical, Oriental

11236, 165-66 0242, 168 n8, 168

and/or occult beliefs, 166 0256 Orion, 67, 145 0163, 147 0171

ni 2 Nichol, John Pringle, xii, xx, xxv, 35,

Osborne copy of Eureka, xxxii, xxxiv

36, 67, 93, 126-27 n23, 135 n75,

Ostrom, John Ward, ed., Letters of Edgar

135 n76, 141 11137, 141 11138, 141

Allan Poe, xxvi, 108, 134 n7i, 141

ni4°, 142 11149, 143 11155, H4 ni57, i44ni6o, i46ni63, 162

nl35> *73 Otte, Elise C., 164 n232, 171

n2 2g, 162-63 n230, 172; “Architec¬

Oversoul, 136 n77, 166 11256. See also

ture of the Heavens,” 35; Poe’s note

Emerson, Ralph Waldo

to, 126 n23, 135 076, 141 0137, 141 11138, 1460163; Views of the Architec¬

Pagan fables, 31

ture of the Heavens, 67; Vietvs of Astrono¬

Pallas, 80. See also Asteroid (s)

my: Seven Lectures, 127 1123, L35 n75>

Pannekoek, Antonie, A History of Astron¬

141 0137, 141 0138, 142 0149, 143

omy, 15611213, i66n242, 172

0155, 1440160, 1460163, 162

Parallax, 85, 155 n2og, 156 n2io

n229

Parmenides of Elea, xii, xiii, 124 ni 7

“Night of Time,” 9, 105

Parsons, William, third earl of Rosse,

Nihility, 22, 103, 129 044, 132 058

157 11213. See also Rosse, Lord

Nine Great Powers, 115. See also

Particle (s), xxi, xxii; absolute particle,

Asteroid (s)

42, 44, 48; light, 38, 137 084; Parti-

•

1 8 6

■

INDEX cle Proper, 25, 51-53; primordial

0227, 165 11238, 165 0239; vol. 2,

Pardcle, 23-24, 129 044, 142

The Brevities: Pinakidia/Marginalia/

nn151-53

Fifty Suggestions, ngnii, 120 n 11,

Pascal, Blaise, Pensees, 21, 129 039, 172

123 n 15, 124 ni8, 125 ni8, 125

Past, 61, 69, 136 1177, 146 11165, >47

1119, 128 033, 129 040, 130 050,

ni66

132 058, 133 1165, 134 n7i, 136

Peculiarity, 40 Periodicity, law of, 103

077, 139 nll4> >39 ni22, 145 ni62, 148 11174, 11216, 158 0217, 160

Phenomena, 10

n220, 162 0227; vol. 3, Writings in the

“Pinakidia,” 119 nil, 132058, 133

Broadway Journal: Nonfictional Prose (text), 118 ng, 128 035, 155 0203,

n65, 145 ni62 Plato, xiii, xiv, 79, 152 nigi, 166 0256

163 0230, 164 0232; vol. 4, Writings

Pleiades, go, 160 11220

in the Broadway Journal (annota¬

Plot (of God), xvii n3, 89, 99, 139

tions), 118 ng, 128 035, 163 0230,

nii4, 158-590218 Pluto, 142 0147, 152 0193

164 0232 -, on Poe: “Contemporary Re¬

Poem: Eureka as, xii-xvi, xix, xxv, xxvi, 5

views of Eureka: A Checklist,” xv, xxv,

Poetry, xiv, 96. See also Beauty; Fancy;

xxvi, 126-27 n23, 135 n75, 174; Dic¬ tionary of Names and Titles in Poe’s Col¬

Instinct; Symmetry; Truth (s) Pollin, Burton R. (BRP), xv n2, xvii n3,

lected Works, xxiv, 120 n 11, 130 049,

xix n4, xxi n5, xxi n6, xxix, xxxi,

132 058, 174; Discoveries in Poe, 117 n

107, 117 n Preface, 117 n7, 120 m2, 122 m3, 126 n20, 128 n3i, 128

Preface, 121-22 m3, 158 0217, 174; “Empedocles in Poe: A Contribution

035, 130 050, 132 058, 132 n62,

of Bielfeld,” xxvi, 174; ‘“MS. Found

133 n65> >34 n65> 134 n67> 134 071, 136 n77> 137 m85> 138 n9°>

in a Bottle’ and Sir David Brewster’s

138 ni 11, 138 ni 14, 139 ni 18, 139

Poe Creator of Words, xxxiii, 107, 118

ni22, 140 ni33, 142 0149, 143

ng, 121 m2, 122 m3, 123 ni5, 123'

0156, 1440159, i44ni6o, 145

ni6, 126 n20, 126 n23, 128 n26,

Letters: A Source,” 161 n222, 174;

ni62, 146 0165, 147 m6g, 147

128 n2g, 128 037, 129 037, 130

ni73, 1490178, 150 0179, 150

n45, 130 nso, 131 053, 131 056,

ni8o, 154 nig8, 155 0203, 157

133 n65> >34 n69> >35 n73> >35 n77, 136 n77, 137 083, 137 n87,

n2i3, 157 0214, 157 n2i6, 158 n2i7, 1590218, 161 n220, 163

138 ngi, 139 ni 18, 141 0138, 141

0231, 1640232, 1640234, 167

ni40, 143 0155, 144 ni57, 144 ni6o, 146 0163, 147 ni67, 147

n266, 167 n2 -, ed.: Collected Writings of Edgar

ni7i, 148 n 174, 149 n 178, 150

Allan Poe, xxix, 173; vol. 1, The Imagi¬

ni8o, 151 nigi, 1540198, 159

nary Voyages: The Narrative of Arthur

n2ig, 161 n223, 64 0232, 165 0238,

Gordon Pym/The Unparalleled Adventure

167 0259, 167 n262, 167 0263, 167

of One Hans Pfaall/The Journal of Julius

n266, 174; “Poe’s Use of Material

Rodman, 118 n7, 142 ni4g, 145

from Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s

0163, 1500179, 1540201, 156

Etudes, ” 119 n 11, 174; “Politics and

0213, 157 11213, 161 0223, 162

History in Poe’s ‘Mellonta Tauta’:

•187-

INDEX Two Allusions Explained,” 158 n2i8,

Rabelais, Frangois, 129 n39

174; Word Index to Poe’s Fiction, xxxiii,

Radiation, 34, 37-52, 71, 80, 89, 95, 100, 103, 137 n87, 152 ni93, 155

123 ni7, 134 1167, 149 ni78, 166 n245, i66n246, i66n247, 174 Pope, Alexander, “Epitaphs Intended for Sir Isaac Newton,” 143 ni52 Posey, Meredith Neill, “Notes on Poe’s ‘Hans Pfaall,’” 118 n7, 174

n202; irradiation 135 n73 Ram(s), 11, 12, 14, 16, 127 n23, 122 n 14 “Rationale of Verse, The,” xxvi, 145 ni62

“Power of Words, The,” 131 057, 134 n68, 147 0173, 151 ni82, 166 n243

Ravetz, Jerome R., and I. GrattanGuiness, “Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourrier,” 159 n2 20, 174

“Prediction, A” 108 “Premature Burial, The,” 165 n237

“Reaction,” 25, 41,43, 45, 48, 52, 62,

Pritchard, Augustin (translator of Hum¬

68, 95, 99, 103, 130 nso Reason, 18, 23, 33, 40, 51, 68, 90, 137

boldt’s Kosmos), 164 11232 Psyche Zenobia, 134-35 n7U 152 n 191. See also “How to Write a Black¬

1189 Reciprocity, xxi, 88, 89, 101, 157 n2i6, 158 n217, 159 n218. See also Adapta¬

wood Article”

tion, Divine

Ptolemaeus, Claudius, 120 ni 1

Rees, Abraham, Cyclopaedia: or, Universal

Ptolemy Chennos, 120 ni 1 Ptolemy Hephestion, 9,119-20 nil.

Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Litera¬ tures, 149 ni78, 167 n2; Ree’s Manu¬

See also Ptolemy Chennos

Pulkovo Observatory, 156 11210. See also Struve, Otto

facturing Industry, 149 n 178

Relation(s), 8, 9, 24, 25, 32, 33, 35, 37,

Pundit, 12, 124 m8, 155 n204. See also “Mellonta Tauta” (in Greek); Pundita Pundita, ngnii, 121 m2, 121 m3,

39. 44- 45. 50. 5U 53> 56- 7U 92. 130-31 n52. See also Multiplicity “Remarkable letter,” 9-16, 119 ni 1 Repulsion (repulsive force, influence,

122 ni4, 123 ni7, 126 n22, 144 ni6o, 155 n204, 160 n2 20. See also

power, spirit), xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxxiii,

“Mellonta Tauta” (in Greek); Pundit

26-29, 48, 53, 54, 62, 63, 64, 80,

“Purloined Letter, The,” xv, 122 ni4,

133 n65> x59 n2i8 Putnam copy of Eureka, xxvi, xxxi, xxxii Pythagoras, 152 nigi

101, 102, 131 11154, 132 n58. See also Attraction; Electricity Robertson, John Parish, Solomon Seesaw, 128 n27

Pythagoreans, 152 nigi

Roget, Peter Mark, Animal and Vegetable Psychology, Considered with Reference to

Quarterly Review, “The Universe and Its

Natural Theology, 140 m 33

Author,” 140 11133. See also St. Ar-

Romantic movement, xxii

maud. Barton Levi

Romantics (authors of the Romantic

Quinn, Arthur Hobson, Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography, 129 1144, 174

167 n259

Quinn, Patrick, ed., Edgar Allan Poe/

Ronan, Colin A., Astronomers Royal, 156

Poetry and Tales, 127 n24, 157 11213,

174

movement), 161 11222, 166 n256,

n2i3,174 Rosetta Stone, 126 n23

• 1 8 8 •

INDEX Rosse, Lord (William Parsons, Third

Skylark, 119ml, See also “Mellonta

Earl of Rosse), 67, 87, 93, 118 n7,

Tauta” (in Greek)

145-460163, 157 0213. See also Par¬

Slough (telescope), 156 n2i3

sons, William

Sneezing, 120 ni2 Solomon Seadrift, 128 1127. See also Fo¬

Rossi Mountains, 118 n7 Ross, Sir James Clark, 151 ni82. See also Erebus

lio Club Solomon Seesaw, 16, 128 n27- See also

Roughgarden, Jonathan, Theory of Popu¬ lation Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction, 158^17, 174

Robertson, John Parish “Sonnet—to Science,” xvi, 118 ng, 122 ni4

Sophocles, Antigone: Poe’s quotation from, 148 0174. See also “Mellonta

Satire (in Eureka), xvii, xviii, xix-xx, 118 ng; attitudes toward Transcen¬

Tauta” (in Greek)

dentalism, 134-35 n7x> x43 nni5i53; relation to “Bon-Bon,” 120 1112;

Sorrow, 104. See also Injustice, Divine;

relation to “Mellonta Tauta,” 155

Soul, xvi, xvii n3, xxiii, xxiv, 10, 14, 15,

n204, 161 n2 2 2; relation to “Thin-

J°y 22, 28, 35, 54, 63, 77, 87, 89, 103, 104, 126 n2i, 128 n2g, 140 0133,

gum Bob,” 139 n 12 2 Saturday Museum, 128 031

166 0243, 166 0256, 167 0259. See also Body

Saturn, 57, 58, 70, 73, 80, 83, 110, 114, 115, 142 0147, 148-49 0178, 152 11193 Savans, 11, 14, 122013

Southern Literary Messenger, 128 n3i, 140

ni33> x55 0203 Space and Duration (space/time), 87,

cialization and Coevolution in Plant-

157 n 214. See also One Specialization, xxii, xxiv

Animal Mutualisms,” 158 n2i7, 174

“Spectacles, The,” 151 ni82

Schemske, Douglas W., “Limits to Spe¬

Spirit, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, xvii n3, xxiii,

Schofield, Robert E., Mechanism and Materialism: British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason, 132 n57, 174 “Secondary Cause, ”7, 60, 163 0230. See

xxiv, 17, 22, 27, 77, 101, 104, 129 n44, 130 n45, 131 n57, 138 ni 11, 142 ni5i-53, 166 n243; Spirit Divine, 106, 167 n266. See also

also “First Cause”; “First Thing”

Matter

Secret, the, 16, 40, 41, 43, 138 ng7 “Shadow,” 133 n65 Shakespeare, 117 n Preface; quotation

Spirituality, xxiii, 99, 131 n57, 142

nni5i-53, i66n243 St. Armand, Barton Levi, ‘“Seemingly

from Hamlet, 155 n203

Intuitive Leaps’: Belief and Unbelief

Shelley, Percy Bysshe, “A Defense of

in Eureka, ” 140 ni33> i54nig4, 174

Poetry,” xxii, 122 ni4

St. Augustine: Civitas Dei, on Anaxi¬

Shew, Marie Louise, 128 n2g Simms, William Gilmore, The Partisan, 115 n203 Simplicity, 7, 22, 23, 24, 29, 34, 35, 36,

mander, xiii St. Bonaventure, 129 n3g Stedman, Edmund Clarence, and George Woodberry, eds., The Works of

37. 5° Simplicius, xiii. See also Anaximander

Edgar Allan Poe, xxiii, xxiii n7, xxiv,

•189-

INDEX xxvi, 107, 108, 132 1158, 168 ng, 168 m2, 173-74 Sticker, Bernhard, “Friedrich Wilhelm August Argelander,” 1630231, 175

“To—

,” 126 n2i, 128 n27

Transcendence, 166 n256 Transcendentalism, xvi, xvii, xxiv, 36, 120 nn, 135 n77, 143 nni5i-53 Transcendentalist(s), 9, 14, 1201111,

St.John, Henry, Viscount of Boling-

134-35 n7T

broke, 143 n 152. See also Nature Stringham, Irving, 107-8, 132 058, 168

nni51-53

Tribune (NewYork), 135 075, 135 nj6,

162 n22g Truck(s), 114, 168 ni5

n8, 168 ng. See also Woodberry, George Struve, Otto, 86, 156 n2io, 160 n2 20

Triton: as Greek sea deity, 123 n 15; as satellite of Neptune, 141 ni40, 152

The Stylus, 135 1175

Sun(s) 16, 32, 54, 55, 57, 58, sg, 61, 62, 63, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 78, 7g, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, go, g2, g7, g8, 100, log, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,

ni93 Trotter, W. F., 129 n3g, 172. See also Pascal, Blaise, Pensees Truth (s), xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xxii, xxiii, xxiv,

0140, 143 0155, i46ni63, 150

5, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 50, 51, 60, 65, 70, 93, 96,

ni79, 151 nigo, 152 nig3, 154

103, 104, 117 n Preface, 120 nil,

n20i, 155 0204, 156 n2io, 160

120 m2, 122 m4, 124 ni7, 127

n220, 161 n22i, 161 n222, 163 n23i, 165 n242, 167 n2; non-lumi-

1123. 135 n7x> 137 1189, 138 n97. 141 ni35, 162 n230. See also Poetry;

nous, 64, gi

Unity

127 n23, 138 ngo, 141 0135, 141

Superstring theory, xxi

“Tuclid,” 9, 120-21 m2. See Euclid

Swan, the (constellation), 86

Twain, Mark, The Adventures of Huckleber¬

Swedenborg, Emanuel, xxv, 135 n77, l4°

ry Finn, 140 n 133. See also Bridgewater Treatises, The

ni34

Swedenborgianism, 36, 135 n77

Twarog, Barbara, 152 11193

Symmetry, xii, 89, 96, 99

Twarog, Bruce (Twarog), xxi, xxix, 107,

System-atoms, 72, 100, 166 n246

131-32 1157, 133 n62, 137 n87, 145 ni63, 147 ni7o, 147 0172, 150

Tales by Edgar A. Poe, 137 n8g, 173

ni8i, 151 11182, 151 nigo, 151

Thingum Bob, 139 11122, 142 ni4g. See

nigi. 152 iii93> 153 iii93. 155

also “The Literary Life of Thingum

11202, 155 n205, 155 n2og, 156

Bob”

n2og, 156 n2io, 157 n2i4, 160

Thoreau, Henry David, Walden, xi, 125

n220, 165 n236, 167 n2

nig, 138 ngo, 138 ng7 Thought(s), xiii, 12, 18, 20, 28, 33, 35, 48, 101, 128 n2g, 131 057, 134 n6g, 151 ni85- See also Electricity; Infinity Titanic atoms, 72, 100, 148 n 174 Titius, Johann Daniel, 153 0193. See also Bode, Johann Elert; Bode,

m73. 151 11182 Uni-tendency, 26, 131 n53 Unity, xiii, xiv, xvii n3, xx, xxi, xxii, 7,

Titans, 148 ni74

Law of

“Ulalume,” 1400133, 143 0156, 147

23. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 60, 70, 72, 77. 88, 93, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 1291144, 131 n57, 1351171, 163

•190-

INDEX 11230, 164 11232, 166 11256. See also Atom(s); Multiplicity; Truth (s)

114, 142 11147, M3 11156, 144 ni6o, 152 nig3, 153 n 193, 168 n6

Universal Sphere, 53, 54, 71, 74, 100

Vesta, 80. See also Asteroid (s)

Universe (s), xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, xix, xx,

Vitalism, School of, 144 ni6o, 157

xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, 7, 15, 16, 17,

11214 Void(s), 23, 75, 76, 87, 150 ni8i, 152

21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 37, 41, 45, 53, 54, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83,

ni82

86, 87, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101,

Volition/Divine Volition, 22, 26, 35, 42, 44, 48, 52, 53, 62, 68, 71, 103,

103, 104, 105, 106, 124 ni7, 126 n23> M1 n57> 13* n57, 134 n68,

13911118, 142 nni5i-53, 135 n76.

!35 n77> *37 n87> M9 ni l8> M° ni34, 142 nisi, 142 nni5i-53,

See also God

“Von Kempelen and His Discovery,”

146 ni65, 148 11177, 15° ni8i, 156

158 n2i7

n2io, I56n2i3, 160 n220, 163 Walden, 138 ngo, 138 ng7- See afooTho-

n230, i64n232, i64n234, 165

reau, Henry David

n236, 166 n243, 166 n256, 167 n266; material and spiritual princi¬ ples of, 28; Poe’s explanation of us¬

Walker, I. M., ed., Edgar Allan Poe: The Critical Heritage, xxv, 175

age, 8; Poe’s lecture on, 144 ni5g;

Weir, John A., 1580217

as plot of God, 89, 139 ni 14; of Va¬

Wheelwright, Philip, ed., The Presocratics, xiii, 124 n 17, 175

cancy, 76 Universe of Stars, 8, 21, 37, 41, 54, 71,

Whitman, Walt, Leaves of Grass, xi, xii Will/Divine Will, 23, 25,47, 103, 129

72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 87, 105, 163

n4i, 131 n52, 138 ni 11. See also God

n230. See also Universe (s)

Williams, Henry Smith, The Great Astron¬

“Universe, The” (lecture), 144 n 159 “Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans

omers, 156 n2i3, 175

Pfaall, The,” 118 n7, 142 ni49, 150

Willis, Nathaniel P., 128 n35

ni79, 157 n2i3, 158 n2i7, 162

Wines, Enoch Cobb, xxv

n227, 165 n238, 165 n239

Woodberry, George. See Stedman, Ed¬

Uranus, 57, 60, 70, 80, 83, 110, 114, 115, 135 n76, 141 ni40, 142 ni47,

mund Clarence, and George Woodberry, eds., The Works of Edgar Allan Poe

142 ni49, 152 ni93

Wordsworth, William, “Ode: Intima¬

Utilitarianism, 138 ni 11

tions of Immortality from Recollec¬ tions of Early Childhood,” 167 n259

Vacancy, 76, 155 n202. See also

World-Reason, 104

Universe (s) Valery, Paul, “Au sujet d’Eureka” (quo¬ tation from Cowley translation), xi-

Vankirk (character), 130 n45- See also Venus, 59, 63, 64, 80, 83, 110, 111,

n256. See also Oversoul; Transcenden¬ talism

xii, xx Van Buren, Martin, 117 n Preface “Mesmeric Revelation”

World-spirit, 131 054, 136 077, 166

Y, 73, 74, 148-49 ni78. See also Galaxy “Yaanek,” 151 ni82. See also Erebus Youth, 103-5

• 1 9 1 •

STUART LEVINE, professor emeritus of English, University of Kansas, A.B., Harvard University, and M.A. and Ph.D., Brown University, is the founding editor of American Studies and founding chair of the American studies department at the University of Kansas. He has published books of original fiction and volumes on technical writing, on Poe, on Native Americans (with N. O. Lurie), on American painting, and, with Susan F. Levine, annotated editions of Poe’s work. His writing awards include the Gross-Woodley Award in Fiction, the Anisfield-Wolf Award in Race Rela¬ tions, and a citation from the National Council of Christians and Jews. A Fulbright lecturer in Argentina, Costa Rica (twice), Mexico, and Italy, he has also taught at Brown, the University of the West Indies, the Universi¬ ty of Wisconsin, Kansas State University, and the University of MissouriKansas City. A professional musician, he was principal French horn of the Rhode Island Philharmonic Orchestra and had a weekly network radio program of music commentary. SUSAN F. LEVINE, B.S.Ed., M.A., Southern Illinois University, is a former university administrator at the University of Kansas, where she completed a Ph.D. in Spanish with an emphasis on Latin American liter¬ ature. She has taught Spanish language and literatures and has held a Fulbright lectureship in American literature in Asuncion, Paraguay. She has published articles on Latin American and Spanish authors and has collaborated for many years with Stuart Levine on editions and scholarly studies of the works of Edgar Allan Poe.

The University of Illinois Press is a founding member of the Association of American University Presses.

Composed in 10.5/13 New Baskerville by Celia Shapland for the University of Illinois Press Manufactured by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

University of Illinois Press 1325 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820-6903 www.press.uillinois.edu

LIBRARY

45*0/1 \A\^^

3 1TE7 □□0fllDT3 4

DATE DUE

GAYLORD

PRINTED IN U.S.A.

EDGAR ALLAN POE (1809-49), preeminent

American writer and literary critic, exerted a worldwide influence on literature through his short fiction and his theoretical statements on poetry and the short story. STUART

LEVINE is founding chair of the

American studies department at the University of Kansas. He is the author or editor of nine books, including Edgar Poe, Seer and Craftsman, and the founder of American Studies, which he edited for thirty years. SUSAN F. LEVINE served as assistant dean of

the Graduate School at the University of Kansas. She is the author of articles on Latin American writers. Together with Stuart Levine, she is coed¬ itor of The Short Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe and coauthor of articles on Poe’s work.

AMERICAN

LITERATURE

///y/.f/ ’/'fi EDGAR ALLAN POE Edited rvitli an Introduction, Notes, and Textual Variants by Stuart Levine and Susan F. Levine

“Outside France [Eureka] . . . has been neglected, but I do not think Poe was wrong in the importance he attached to it. . . . [I]t was a very daring and origi¬ nal notion to take the oldest of the poetic themes—older even than the story of the epic hero— .. . and treat it in an absolutely contemporary way.. .. Secondly, it is full of remarkable intuitive guesses that subsequent scientific discoveries have confirmed.” — W. H. Auden

[Eureka embodies] “an affirmation of the symmetric aland reciprocal relationship of matter, time, space, gravity, and light. . . . [Poe] has built an abstract poem, one of the rare modern examples of a total explanation of the material and spiritual universe, a cosmogony. It belongs to a department of literature remark¬ able for its persistence and astonishing in its variety1; cosmogony is one of the oldest literary forms.” — Paul Valery

“Eureka... is a work which refuses to be confined within the arbitrary definitions of a genre. [Poe himself called Eureka] ... ‘A Prose Poem,’. . . ‘An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe,’. . . a ‘Book of Truths,’. . . and an ‘Art-Product alone,’ adding that it should also be taken as ‘A Romance; or if I not be urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem.’” — Barton Levi St. Armand

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS Urbana and Chicago www.press.uillinois.edu

isbn

1

0-252-02849-x ||

1 II

9 "780252.028496'

90000